On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:11:49PM +0200, sean finney wrote:
> > A complete aside: I have yet to see DEPs being anything but a structured
> > way to bikeshed. However, if you wish to go down this route, feel free.
> > This does bring me full circle back to the start of my mail - if you
> > want to push this, that's fine. But please don't try and make extra work
> > for others.
>
> While just about any technical discussion on -devel will have its tangents
> and its non sequitors, I think we *have* had some good stuff come out of the
> DEP's, so I disagree there. For example, DEP-3 and DEP-5 have (indeed,
> after quite a bit of bikeshedding) resulted in some nice pseudo-standards
> that are gaining increasing traction/usage.
Agreed. DEPs neither add nor remove anything from a specific discussion,
they are just a way to keep track of the outcome, or status, of it. In
that sense, if there is too much bikeshed, it's most likely inherited
from the way we discuss. Additionally, in the specific case of using
DEPs to write standards, bikeshed is part of the game, as many
participants in standards body can confirm.
JFYI, Sean and Raphael have taken DEP number 10 and I believe they're
going to use it to summarize the proposal and the other pro/against
arguments raised in this thread. So we might all want to hold on a bit
and start fresh from their summary.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature