Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> writes: > Again, I'm sorry to pick on one sentence out of context, but it cut > straight to my biggest fear when doing a commit (on any project) - > what if, after all the worrying and consideration I put into doing > this commit, people disagree with me (or worse still, I made a > mistake)? Will I be able to justify what I decided?
That seems quite healthy to me. On a collaborative project with effects far beyond oneself, yes, any change *should* be able to be justified when challenged. That isn't a mandate to challenge every change, of course. It does mean that every change should be considered in light of “Can I justify this, if challenged?” So what you describe sounds like a healthy barrier: one which works to keep out unjustifiable changes. What is needed is to have both that *and* the support of the community so it's not a barrier to the *contributors*. The contributors should not feel excluded merely because some of their changes might need to be. > Hmm, maybe I'd better hold off and let someone else make the > decision... What of the (obvious, to me) option to retain the authority to make the decision, but take the doubt as a sign that one should consult with others before making the decision? That is, there's no need to feel that one shouldn't make the decision. But perhaps one shouldn't make it solely on one's own experience or insight. Get others involved, even non-committers, and discuss it, and understand the issue better. With that improved basis, then make the decision. Am I naive to think that's desirable for PYthon core committers? -- \ “Ours is a world where people don't know what they want and are | `\ willing to go through hell to get it.” —Donald Robert Perry | _o__) Marquis | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
