In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen McConnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >>>I do not agree that this is the dumping ground for contentious code. It >>>was my understanding that this is the area for non-released code, >>>experiments, and evolving content. I don't think we should change that. >> >>agreed. However, the things I think that are currently contentious are >>unreleased evolving experiments :D >... > If something is released it's non-contentious. If something is not > released - then its sandbox - and its auto contentious because it hasn't > been through a release process. Contentious or otherwise is a very > subjective thing - I don't think anything I am working on is > contentious, but I know some people think otherwise. That's why we > delineate things through a release process is important.
I don't see that "is released" implies non-contentious. Are you trying to say that just because one hunk of code happened to get popped out to users, then it is suddenly Right? No... that doesn't follow at all. It is quite easy to release crap, realize that later, and want to change it. Don't let history get in the way of what is Right. Pay mind to your users, but also pay mind to what the code really needs. Is it Goodness? Or does it need to change in some way? I can certainly offer up a lot of httpd/apr code that was total crap, yet it was released. But I suppose "just knowing" is more important than having a pointer :-) Cheers, -g -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
