Am 03.03.15 um 21:32 schrieb Greg Troxel: > > Marc Balmer <m...@msys.ch> writes: > >>> I meant that adding to base was discuss-worthy because there's >>> a "bloat or necessary" question, not because of risk of >>> breakage. >> >> Sure. So how much "bloat" is pwait? Is it a huge piece of >> software or a small utility? I think that matters a bit. > > Posting a note that says "I would like to add X, and here's why, > and my comments on the bloat/necessary tradeoff." takes only a few > minutes (assuming well-formed thoughts already). If there's no > grumbling in 48-72h, that's fine. It's not like this sort of > review/comment costs a lot or really gets in the way - new programs > in base are pretty rare. > > I don't think pwait is a big deal. I do think that in general we > have too much "commit first, argue about appropriate later".
I think you contradict yourself, when you say a) new programs in base are pretty rare, and b) we have too much "commit first, argue about appropriate later". While in some cases it makes sense to discuss changes, be reminded that a TNF membership also comes with the privilege to commit. There is no rule that such commits have to be discussed upfront. And for commands that are, in your words "no big deal", I think there is not much gain in disussing them ad nauseam before just and simply adding them. Absolutely nothing is wrong, otoh, to first send a note to the appropriate mailing list. I am just claiming here that this is not mandated. Correct me if I am wrong.
