On 1/4/11, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: >>... >> There is no prerequisite to post "intent" in this case. Results matter >> more than "intent" :) > > I beg to differ. What did not work for us in the past (and present) is a > very late inspection of a package in which all the decisions have been > already made and all the work has been done. Imagine a situation in > which there are 2 ways of making a package, and you have to make the > design decision first, and then do a lot of work. If you want to > change your design decision later on, you basically have to go back to > the start. The time to discuss that design is before you do the work, > not after.
Certainly. But that has nothing to do with announcing "intend to package". If that sort of problem comes up, it seems straightforward to make a targetted email, "I'm looking at packaging X, but run into problem Y. How would people suggest I solve problem Y"? the subject should be more about "problem Y". the fact that it is contained in "package X" is only peripheral information. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
