Dear Jason, first things first: you correctly point out below that darcs is a volunteer-run project. I am no less a volunteer than anyone else. I will probably also disappoint you, because I am not going to give you a very detailed reply.
Jason Dagit <[email protected]> writes: > Who is "we" and where/when was this discussed? I heard this may have > been discussed on IRC. Could you please provide links to the relevant > discussion or summaries? > >> I'm proposing for the branch to live on >> http://darcs.net/adventure. The current review team should stay >> responsible for this branch, in addition to mainline (http://darcs.net). > > Okay. You're asking the review team to split their attention between > the two? This sounds unpleasant given that as a volunteer run project > we're perpetually understaffed and human attention is one of our most > valuable resources. No, I am not asking anyone to do anything and I am certainly not bossing around the rest of the team. I am offering my work to go into darcs. Take it or leave it. It would be much more comfortable to fork -- which is what will I do if the review team ends up disagreeing with the branching. You don't have to like my code. You however can't stop me from writing it. > How would those design experiments fit into your adventure branch? First you say you strongly disagree and now want to use it? Well, what can I say. You can submit your code for review of course. I outlined the rules in my original mail, although they are subject to further review team discussion. > Another thing to consider is that there are lots of arguments > available, if you search for them on google, explaining why it's bad > to throw away your code and start over. I really hope that's not or > plan our. The type-witnesses were not easy to get integrated and yet > we came up with a plan that let us put them in incrementally. What I > don't know, because I missed out on the previous discussions, is why > it is not feasible to refactor the current code to include lots of QC > properties and other QA, and then refactor mercilessly? As ever, I'd appreciate if you did some research on your own part before telling others how to do things. > If we make correctness a priority from the BEGINNING of the adventure > branch and have test driven development (or formal methods driven > development) requirements on all code that goes in, I will feel quite > happy about the branch. I'll be telling everyone to use it once its > merged back in. I'll be singing the songs of darcs praise. Happy > lispy will be happy :) I am not doing this to make anyone particularly happy. I suggest you just write a formally verified and thoroughly tested darcs yourself. If it turns out to work, it will probably find its users. > If we instead, just do some testing at the end of the adventure branch > using our current test suite then I'll be dragging my feet. I'll be > quite afraid of the new branch and probably stick with its predecessor > for a few stable release cycles. I'll be telling my friends to stay > away from it too. Basically, I'll be sad. Don't make lispy sad :( No comment. > Therefore, I really hope we can use the adventure branch as a chance > to make a cultural shift to evidence based correctness in all the > patches that we accept to darcs. No. That is a pipe dream. At least for a couple of years yet. Yours, Petr. PS: I think you may have forgotten to include your formal proofs with your latest refactor. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
