When it comes down to it, a single voice *can* veto a technical choice. We
strive very hard to avoid that because of the many anti-social a specs, but
the point still holds true.
I have not seen anything yet that makes me go "oh, that should work great".
Instead, I see a direction in our code that will encourage similar
following, and is being done to remove some code which isn't great, but can
be left for 1.7. I'll take the node walker over 'prepare' any day.
Cheers,
-g
On Apr 12, 2011 9:38 AM, "Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
wrote:
>
>>> Not sure. Maybe we can work through some ideas. But "we have no other
>>> choice" is not a good enough reason to keep this. That is an even worse
>>> slope to slide down. Doing things simply because they are "convenient".
>>
>> The general consensus seems to be to revert the whole lot of these
>> changes, and I'll bow to those wishes and comply.
>
> I do not think you should just back the changes right out immediately.
> Greg is not the only vote or voice in the project. Just because he
> has come out with a strong opinion on the matter does not mean he is
> right or it is the only answer.
>
> I am not saying Greg is wrong here either, I do not really know. You
> seem like you have made some fairly reasonable counter points to his
> concerns about SQL injection. It seems worthy of a broader discussion
> before changes are made.
>
> Greg has raised some objections. It seems like you have responded to
> them. I would like to see the discussion continue.
>
> --
> Thanks
>
> Mark Phippard
> http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2011-04-12 18:14:41 CEST