On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM, John Clements <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Jay McCarthy wrote: > >> We're attempting to write down coding guidelines for the project. >> >> Here is a first attempt: >> >> http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay/tmp/201008161509-guidelines.html >> >> Please comment. > > You write > > "As long as your code fulfills its promises and meets each of these criteria, > you can push incrementally. > > For example, I may be working on adding an exhaustive queue library to > Racket. I imagine supporting 30 different functions across 5 different queue > implementations. I don't have to wait to push until all 150 function > implementations are documented, tested, and stressed. I can push whenever I > make progress on each of the required points." > > Either this is contradictory, or I'm misunderstanding it. The first > paragraph suggests that the code must meet each of the criteria; the second > suggests that as long as it's *closer* to meeting the required criteria, it's > fine.
Maybe you can help me say it better. What I'm trying to get at is that 150 functions is perfect to me, but if I only promise 30 functions and meet the criteria for each of them, then I can commit even though it is not "perfect". Progress here is meeting the 4 points for each new function I push. Jay -- Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
