On Jul 17, 2012 1:27 AM, "Branko Čibej" <br...@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
