On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 16:58, Hyrum K. Wright
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> Or writing a design proposal, that clearly explains the intent
>> of the change, the reason why it's needed, the security implications,
>> how exactly the change will be implemented (e.g. where will the config
>> setting live that allows the new behaviour?), etc.
>> Something that helps people with loading the entire problem into
>> their brain quickly, so they can reason about it
> The last thing I want to do is add more process (someones earlier comments
> about HACKING are quick illuminating), but it might be worth creating a
> template for such a document and posting it somewhere. I don't think we
> need to go the full route of PEPs, but having some way to track design
> proposals with more finesse than the issue tracker would be nice.
This is why patches are nice. Already have the format!
But yah... if it is going to be a lot of work, then discussion is at
least warranted. That's the best way to get a feeling for whether the
effort will be worth it.
In this case, I think the question "should I bother to work on this?"
was probably left hanging because the problem/solution was too vague
for people to definitively answer.
Received on 2010-04-10 02:31:37 CEST