Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost> writes: > I think you contradict yourself, when you say a) new programs in base > are pretty rare, and b) we have too much "commit first, argue about > appropriate later". Both are true; some/most "commit first discuss later" isn't about new programs. > While in some cases it makes sense to discuss changes, be reminded > that a TNF membership also comes with the privilege to commit. There > is no rule that such commits have to be discussed upfront. The point is that in theory that we are a group cooperating to do something. That should drive our norms. You are right that we don't have a real rule. Often when changes are proposed there are no comments, or a few questions that lead to better commit messages. And when there's a big argument, that's a clue that the discussion really should happen. What I'm trying to say is that in a non-trivial number of situations, more propose/discuss would be good.
Attachment:
pgp3_RQlERCqZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature