Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean) property

On Jul 17, 2012 1:27 AM, "Branko ÄŒibej" <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>
> On 17.07.2012 03:59, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> They're not, to me. This looks like another case of having an "obviously
> correct" solution in hand without having thought about the ramifications.

Oh, I know what you mean, and tend to agree. I'm commenting on the
community process rather than this instance.

> We've historically more or less required to have a design doc written up
> before going into implementation details of major new features.

Euh... no, we haven't.

wc_db.h and Ev2 were designed by header. WC-NG would have been impossible
to design up front. It was a continual research and implementation project.
We had a desired outcome, but that wasn't really written down. I don't
recall docs for patch or svnrdump.

I could reach further into the past, but it doesn't matter. Gating somebody
is improper. You can say "that's wrong" as often as you'd like (other
Apache communities might call it a veto, but we're nicer and more
cooperative :-), and you don't even have to give an alternative. But it
still doesn't mean you can demand a long list of requirements and
documentation. Your (a) thru (e) and "explore other" and "think" crossed
the line, I would say. We want discussion, sure, and maybe that stuff can
help focus the community. It just isn't proper as a requirement.

We are Commit-Then-Review (CTR), not RTC.

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2012-07-17 22:32:25 CEST