> On 12/21/2010 5:22 PM, Mike Giacomelli wrote:
> >
> >
> > If theres a lot of use cases, and the ones the patch currently implements are implemented well, it should be committed and the additional cases handled in future patches.
> >
> >
>
> The main problem is that the patch may go too far to address too many
> use cases. It contains a lot of options that may not even be necessary
> for the use cases it's targeted at. "Too much stuff" is much harder to
> address in future patches than "too little stuff" because it's nearly
> impossible to argue for the removal of an existing feature.

That seems reasonable.  List the parts that are of concern to you and we can commit the rest in the mean time.

>
> As I've said a few times, we should take a step back and try to come to
> a consensus of what should be addressed ignoring what this patch does or
> does not address, then hold this patch up against that and see if it
> fits within that scope.

Are you actually interested in implementing this consensus though?  I don't see much interested in actually working on this patch.  JdGordon and I were the only ones even willing to review it.  Talk is great, but interest is better and that seems definitely lacking here.  
Received on 2010-12-22