On 10/10/2010 12:05 AM, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
P.S Extra bureaucracy is bad! I really think the only thing that needs changing is peoples attitudes and reactions to something they aren't entirely happy with. Everything is version controlled so a civil discussion post commit is just as valid as precommit. (with the added benefit of more people actually trying out said change before shooting it down)
Do you honestly believe post-commit removal is as easy, and as inoffensive, as a good pre-commit discussion that prevents inclusion in the first place? Is it *really* preferable to have new features showing up, being used, being discussed for a day or three, then being removed? A commit log full of "X added", "X removed", "Y added", "Y removed" is no good. And in case you want to say "well, it wouldn't happen too often," if it wouldn't then discussing those cases beforehand wouldn't stop them from getting in in the first place too often either.
