On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:57, Joost van der Sluis <jo...@cnoc.nl> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 10:41 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: >> Op 2010-07-30 17:58, Joost van der Sluis het geskryf: >> > I'm affraid that when the discussion is over, no-one is willing or able >> > to develop what has been concluded from the discussion. >> >> I can only speak for myself. My workflow is as follows... >> >> * I see a gap (missing feature) in FPC, Lazarus IDE etc that I would like >> * If it's something only I will use, I implement it locally. >> * If it's something I think others could find useful too, I discuss >> the idea on the mailing list. >> * If the discussion went well and the idea is still viable, I >> add it to my todo list. >> >> Just because I discussed something, doesn't mean I will implement it >> immediately. I have a large todo list, and items that make it onto my todo >> list, DO get implemented (in my own time). > > This approach will lead to a lot of wasted time of the core developers. > They have to discuss all kinds of ideas, but none of them get > implemented. > > All developers can think of more new features then they can code. What's > the use of discussing all these instead of implementing them? If the > core developers would start discussing all their ideas, and only > implement them if they have time left, the development will stop. > > And please, don't say that we can just skip the discussion. If the > core-team would do that the discussion is far less useful, because they > can still have some reasons to reject the patch, which were not > discussed.
Sorry to interject, but the above is a total self-contradiction. You have said that new features should not be discussed, and in the very next paragraph -- that the discussion is mandatory. -- Alexander S. Klenin _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
