Le mardi 4 juin 2024, 12:18:34 UTC+2 Marvin W a écrit : > Of course there are three kinds: > (a) Those that consider the protocol ready for use in production > software and thus use in production software > (b) Those that consider the protocol not ready for use in production > software, but don't care because they want the feature and don't want > to fix the protocol before using it in production software > (c) Those that consider the protocol not ready for use in production > software, but need to implement it for compatibility with other > production software, because of those in (a) or (b) > > I'd say that: > (a) should just step up and make sure the protocol is turned stable, if > it can't be turned to stable, they might even learn why the protocol is > in fact not ready for use in production, so it's good for them if they > try to move it further. > (b) is just irresponsible behavior. Irresponsible towards your users > (by shipping things to them you consider broken yourself) and towards > the wider community (by requiring everyone to now deal with what is not > ready for production in their production software). > (c) is the worst that we have it, but impossible not to have as long as > there is (a) and (b). > > I'd hope we can get rid of (a) and (c) through changes in the process > and (b) by education. >
Though I usually appreciate your feedback, I find this particular comment especially pedantic and patronizing. You are aware that you say people who implemented OMEMO, for instance, were irresponsible and should be "educated", right?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
