On Jul 12, 1:10 am, "Rupert Voelcker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/7/11 Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> <snip>> The reason you don't see many cases of this is that, unfortunately,
> > large 'patchbombs' rarely end up getting applied. We have a large
> > body of tests and users which we need to keep satisfied unless there's
> > a very very good reason not to. By starting over rather than making
> > lots of incremental changes you've left yourself in a bit of a
> > difficult situation.
>
> <snip>
>
> There's an interesting blog post on this sort of issue:
>
> http://blog.red-bean.com/sussman/?p=96
Well, to my defense, this is more about being able to illustrate my
thoughts better in working code and unit tests rather then some other
kind of description.
Like I said, I had been bringing up ideas on IRC for a while, and I
went over small-ish changes first, but the feeling I was getting was
that a) people prefer seeing code rather then just hear ideas and
suggestions and b) nobody was particularly happy with the old
validations implementation so the option of a total re-write was on
the table.
So here we are.
Again, I really want to emphasize that I am open to changes, including
nuking large swaths of what I already implemented.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
