Ben Finney writes: > I've made a clear distinction between the need to *be able to* > justify a change, versus arbitrary demands to do so by arbitrary > members. > > The latter is what you're arguing against, and of course I agree. I've > never advocated that. Sure, but the former, when stated as a rule rather than induced from past cases, is also an unacceptably high bar. It's unnecessarily high, because this is open source. No mistake is irrecoverable, even if it happens in a public release. One can always keep using the last release one liked.<wink/> Or maintain a local fork. Or switch to a different language. Or <gasp/> live with the misfeature. The other face is that it's impossibly high. Some decisions can't be justified rationally, because the theory isn't developed until later, typically based on experience with an intuitively-approved feature. In the end, some decisions really do come down to somebody's "gut feeling". As I've already said, in the case of "assret" I *personally* think the demands of accountability were higher than the mere repetition of "it's a minor design decision" could satisfy. Nevertheless, I wouldn't try to enunciate a rule. Steve
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4