> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:16:17AM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > I really hate where our time implementation is going. It used to be > > VERY simple, and easy to modify and use. From looking at this > > conversation, it sounds like we are about to go to a VERY complex > > implementation that is hard to modify and use. :-( > > Agreed that complexity is bad. I don't think we need more than one > system of time in APR*. > > -aaron > > *I'm not opposed to having two during a transition phase, but with > our set of requirements we should be able to come up with one (and > I think we already have, no?).
We need two, one for standard time, and one for intervals, which are rooted at an arbitrary point in time. However, even with just one implementation, the ideas being thrown about now are too complex. A big reason that they are too complex, is that rather than come up with a simple design, we are all afraid of the damned vetos that are being thrown about. This whole conversation should just start over, with no vetos, and no emotions. Vetos should be a last resort, but we don't use them as a last resort, we use them as a way to shape where people go with their ideas. Everytime a veto is thrown out, the development gets more confrontational. What I hate most about this, is that I am a big reason that the damned vetos are as common as they are. Ryan
