Hi there,

On 08/12/2009 12:06 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> Right. I understood this in the original proposal. Given that it
> doesn't break the existing API, I have no major problem with it, which
> is why I didn't bother to respond in the first place.  I have a small
> problem that it fattens an existing API.

As far as I understand, the method is there and used and should have
been in that existing API in the first place.

Also, as you say it's only a small problem for you, I guess Thomas can
go ahead moving it.

> I have a larger problem that
> we are wasting time on this. The cleanup doesn't seem worth it to me.
> I especially don't like that *I'm* spending time on this rather than,
> say, working on the kgs or our buildout discussions.

I see truth in what you say, but this answer also takes energy from
people who'd like to spend time on improving small things (which quickly
sum up to larger things) pushing them away from contributing. I don't
think we can afford that.


Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to