Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Let me get a final statement out that perhaps is still misunderstood or
not understood at all:
The way proposals work right now is not sufficient for what I *think*
you're trying to achieve. That's where we agree.
However, I propose to require them to be sufficient. It would not only
improve the documentation of changes (which is what I *think* your goal
is), it would also actually account for our formal development process
that we oh-so praise. Because, as you say rightfully, sometimes
proposals aren't even implemented as they were written in the first
place, or at least they weren't updated after they've been implemented
in a slightly different way. I make no exception to myself here, I
personally did this a few times (I remember at least one time with the
Message IDs as Rocks proposal). That wasn't good.
Okay. +1 for improving the proposal procedure. And you're right - it
will certainly help improve communication to non-core developers.
I still worry about the differences in audience - sometimes you don't
have to explain something to a core developer that you should be
explaining to a non-core developer, and often the things you say to core
developers you don't have to say to a non-core developer after it's
already done (like, say, a "risks" section). I'm not proposing we do
anything about this now, as you're probably right that this would
duplicate work too much. Let's just keep this difference in audience in
mind. That's enough for now.
Thanks for taking the initiative to improve the proposal procedure!
Zope3-dev mailing list