Am 03.03.15 um 22:03 schrieb Greg Troxel: > > Marc Balmer <m...@msys.ch> writes: > >> 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". > > Both are true; some/most "commit first discuss later" isn't about > new programs. > >> 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. > > The point is that in theory that we are a group cooperating to do > something. That should drive our norms. > > You are right that we don't have a real rule. Often when changes > are proposed there are no comments, or a few questions that lead to > better commit messages. And when there's a big argument, that's a > clue that the discussion really should happen. > > What I'm trying to say is that in a non-trivial number of > situations, more propose/discuss would be good.
I agree with that. Remains to decide if with the case at hand we had a non-trivial situation or not. It's not up to me to decide, though I tend to classify it as "trivial".
