Hi, These sorts of emails take me forever to write, so I'm just going to send the first bit and work on the rest later.
I'm a little paranoid that my last message didn't stress quite the right
things, so let me try restating a couple of points to be safe :-)
(1) Change is good. I look forward to seeing darcs change, and the
sooner the better. My intention is not to slow down change, but
to make sure it happens in a controlled fashion (unfortunately, my
attempts at doing this have the side-effect of slowing change down)
(2) I don't care about sunsets. The sunset procedure is only a tool for
managing change. If a better tool exists (a candidate being an
increased reliance on automated tests) then of course we should
use it!
Now on to the details:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 00:09:49 +0100, Petr Rockai wrote:
> > Yep! If I may clarify my position, to avoid future doubt:
> I'm wondering, does this mean yes, will require sunset procedure?
Yes, unless we come to a new agreement about how we're going to manage
change.
[which is the rest of the email]
However it looks, I'm really not trying to block your work, for
caution's sake or otherwise. We move forward, but we try to do it in a
sensible way. Now hopefully in the rest of the message, I could think
more about this sensible way...
--
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
