Am 09. Januar 2018 um 07:39 Uhr +0100 schrieb Daniel Gultsch: > It's more important to > have the tools than to bikeshed about how to use them.
Thanks. First hammer the nail in, and then think where it should have gone. Nice idea. To return from personal argumenting to more useful one, the problem with this approach is that it will ultimately create a situation where we need to care about backward compatibility early on when things are changed. If done properly from the beginning, the problem does not even exist. The hopping forward and backward around the OMEMO XEP is a sad example of this. That being said, I don't want to be overly formal. "Just doing" it before "planning" it is okay if one is willing to adapt the ad-hoc solution in response to feedback. Otherwise I don't see the point in this list at all. I wonder why any discussion where I get involved into ends up at this completely unrelated side-topic about plan-first vs. implementation-first where I did not want to end up at all. All I wanted is to give a useful piece of feedback, and then someone comes around and tells me my feedback is "bikeshedding", i.e. the feedback is unwanted. I think the OP wouldn't have posted to the mailinglist if he didn't want feedback before he starts out. Marvin -- Blog: https://mg.guelker.eu PGP/GPG ID: F1D8799FBCC8BC4F _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
