On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 21:41:46 +0000, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > I like this one because it slots cleanly in next to an existing feature > (the touch matcher) and in fact suggests a way of cleaning up the > implementation of that feature (see the other part of this thread which > discusses how we can get at primitive patches inside compound patches).
So it seems like this makes it through the feature resistance gamut unscathed. At it looks like there is consensus about it (at least given the assent) For what it's worth: +1 for me How do we know when it's OK to green light the new feature? Ideally, it should be somewhat challenging to get a new feature through, not totally hopeless but challenging enough that we know we're doing our bit to fight feature creep. Should we nominate an official Grumpy Old Man every time a new feature comes around? [I think this would be equivalent to the position of Devil's Advocate in the Roman Catholic Church] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Advocate Does somebody want to play Grumpy Old Man to Kamil's patch? -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
