On 8/31/24 17:41, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 8/30/24 22:36, Dukc wrote:
> He said that going forward, accepting a bad DIP would be less
consequential than it had been in the past once we had editions. In
the worst case, we'd have one thing more to maintain in an
intermediate edition before it was fixed. Maybe that was a calculation
we could take into consideration. Átila said that was a good point.
You should be at least as worried about the damage to contributor
morale on a bad decision as about the damage to the language. Editions
do good job limiting the latter but not the former. If you accept that
you can see why this attitude is unnerving.
Rejecting a DIP can be one of those bad decisions.
Anyway, obviously I prefer good decisions over bad decisions,
but language development is an incremental process and it helps if
progress does not have to be fully monotone.
(Accidentally hit send.)
