On Monday, 4 January 2021 at 15:42:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 4 January 2021 at 15:25:13 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 19:59:56 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
1. acknowledgment of the issue
2. acknowledgment of what the issue leads to in terms of
inconvenience
3. a forward looking vision for future improvements
Your two #1 points aren't the same -
understanding/acknowledging the issue. I think I could have
done more to acknowledge it now that you brought it up.
In this case, maybe #1 and #2 are the same. But sometimes
people will complain about the "inconvenience" and not drill it
down to the real cause in terms of language-mechanics.
A valid response could be "I will look and see if I can find
the source of this problem, but I totally see the inconvenience
you are experiencing. We will look at this more closely when
planning for release X.Y.Z where we do an overhaul of subsystem
Q.".
I don't think a process oriented response has to be more
concrete than that?
I wasn't a process-oriented answer, nor do I think it should have
been. The PR was a change to the compiler with an accompanying
DIP. I'm a fan of giving an opinion early to save everyone a lot
of work and bother.
