On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:10:57AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 00:13:01 +0100 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> > Message-ID: <20150303231301.gb13...@britannica.bec.de> > > | It comes with a maintainance price. Add something better a version later > | and it is significantly harder to get rid of the once shiny toy. > > Taken even part way towards its extreme, this says that nothing new can > ever be added until it is known to be perfect - information that cannot > be obtained until it is added and used. When coupled with some requirement > that there be some degree of consensus amongst developers the whole thing > becomes impossible to ever achieve. > > Just trust the developers to make reasonable choices - any that make a habit > of recklessness should simply be turfed out.
*sigh* I was asking about requesting feedback before adding new components. That doesn't mean the new component has to be perfect, but it should demonstrate a need and give others a chance to make sure it is not too restricted to be useless for related problems they know about. I have been asking this before, exactly because I don't like having to maintain lousy interfaces like strtonum long term. New programs are no different. People love to kill such requests as color decisions. It is more a basic case of "step back, let it settle for a moment and give others a chance to shime in". I'm not a proponent of "base must be minimal" nor do I belong to the "base must have a kitchen sink". I've written on tech-userlevel what problems I have in this very area and why this tool doesn't help. I believe a better solution can cover both needs, but now it looks like we will maintain a new script interface with very limited functionality. Joerg
