Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Justin Moore <justin@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Freeciv Developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development
From: Kevin Brown <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:50:35 -0800

Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >    I sent in some huge patches, but several people complained about it,
> > saying that I had actually written code^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> > not thought out the design enough and their whiz-bang paper tiger was
> > better.  Since then I've heard nothing about it.
> Huge patches are bad idea, approval chance near zero, IMHO.

Yeah, but *WHY*?  A patch should be disapproved only if it breaks
something in a very fundamental way.  Otherwise it should
experimentally be included and the bugs worked out if possible.  The
CVS maintainers can create a special branch for it if that would make
it easier to deal with.

Inclusion, not rejection, should be the default case.  There should
always be very good reason to reject a patch.  Stuff like formatting,
naming conventions, etc. shouldn't be sufficient for rejection,
because that's stuff that can be fixed by the people who really care
about such things.

Kevin Brown                                           kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    It's really hard to define what "unexpected behavior" means when you're
                       talking about Windows.

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]