On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:24 AM Christian Schneider <cschn...@cschneid.com> wrote:
> > My issue with this is that while it seems to work towards the goal of > "fail fast" it does not completely fulfill its promise. > > Pardon me, but this argument seems rather impotent. Only fully realized features are allowed? What if there is not agreement on the details of some of the edgecases? Something better should be rejected because it's not something perfect? This is an attitude I have encountered from management at jobs before, but seems very odd to me from a development perspective. The proposed error may not be good as its own change (personally I could go either way on it), but this particular explanation is not a reason to vote against something, it is a rationalization. There may be good reasons to object to this, but I'd like to hear what those are instead. Jordan
