Andrew Zeneski wrote: > So, instead of discussing what should or should not have been done, look > at the fact that this entire effort is sitting in the community's lap > right this minute. But instead of reviewing what is there, pointing out > weaknesses offering suggestions or anything constructive at all, the > discussion is solely around whether or not code should have been > implemented or not. Let's face it, these documents have been in front of > you for over a week, and there was not a single objection or concern > raised until today. I have only a limited amount of free time, and if I > am going to following this effort through to the end, it needs to have a > steady progression. So to be frank, get over it.
This can be summarized as release early, release often. If there are problems with the actual implementation, then, by all means, give details as to what you(not you Andrew, but whoever) take issue with. But never put down someone who is *actually coding*, and, responding to issues that are raised. Plus, if the new system can run in parallel, and classes can be changed over to it one at a time, then what is the big deal? ps: I've not actually read the document, nor actually looked at any of this new code. I'm just commenting on the resulting fracas, if I can use the term. pps: I'm very interested in the idea of this. A single api to be used by any class for security, would be very welcome by me.
