On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote: > PJ Eby writes: > > This is a good example of what I meant about clear thinking on > > concrete use cases, vs. simply copying fields from distro tools. In > > the distro world, these kinds of fields reflect the *results* of > > research and decision-making about compatibility. Whereas, in our > > "upstream" world, the purpose of the fields is to provide downstream > > repackagers and integrators with the source materials for such > > research. > > I agree with the meaning of the above paragraph, but would like to > dissociate myself from the comparison implied by the expression "clear > thinking".
What comparison is that? By "clear", I mean "free of prior assumptions". The assumptions that made the discussion difficult weren't just about the use cases themselves, but about the environments, tools, organizations, concepts, etc. surrounding those use cases. Indeed, even the assumption of what should *qualify* as a "use case" was a stumbling block on occasion. ;-) And by "thinking", I mean, "considering alternatives and consequences", as distinct from debating the merits of a specific position. Put together, the phrase "clear thinking on concrete use cases" means (at least to me), "dropping all preconceptions of the existing design and starting over from square one, to ask how best the problem may be solved, using specific examples as a guide rather than using generalities." Generalities not rooted in concrete examples have a way of leading to non-terminating discussions. ;-) Starting over a discussion in this fashion isn't easy, but the results are usually worth it. I appreciate Nick and Daniel's patience in particular. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
