couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Dionne <>
Subject Re: change planning
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:55:05 GMT
I'll second that. IRC seems to encourage more out of the box and less  
deliberate thinking.

I'll also agree with Chris that branches are not desirable. They seem  
to work great on Github for experimental work and fleshing out of  
ideas but in the main project resources, I think, are too limited to  
support separate lines of work.

How about discussion on the mailing list followed by a summary posted  
to a WIKI page immediately prior to development to clarify what folks  
are voting for or against,


On Jan 5, 2009, at 4:13 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> IMO, IRC is a horrible medium for anything but direct support of  
> users, and small debates, because it tends to leave people out of  
> the discussion and decision-making process.
> I don't think that it's easy to review IRC logs, because they are  
> more conversational and "of the moment" rather than having even the  
> minimal structure of an email discussion.  it's also hard to add to  
> the discussion later, unlike email...
> geir
> On Jan 5, 2009, at 4:05 AM, James Arthur wrote:
>> One approach might be to summarise (or 'shaila') IRC discussions  
>> and circulate on the mailing list.  A combination of IRC logs and  
>> shailas can help discussions jump across time zones.
>> Takes some work from a willing volunteer though (and thus is  
>> vulnerable to stopping happening).
>> Antony Blakey wrote:
>>> On 05/01/2009, at 1:09 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
>>>> I think some of this is a symptom of the fact that at least Jan,  
>>>> Noah,
>>>> Damien, and I are on IRC pretty much every day, so it's easy for  
>>>> us to
>>>> think we've got consensus on something without bringing it up on  
>>>> the
>>>> lists. Perhaps the best solution is to push this activity back  
>>>> to the
>>>> lists, with perhaps of list of decisions that have been made  
>>>> (even if
>>>> not implemented) maintained either in the bug tracker or on the  
>>>> wiki,
>>>> with reference to ML threads.
>>>> However, all that sounds very formal and slow, and at this point  
>>>> in a
>>>> project with only 5 committers and very simple code base and  
>>>> feature
>>>> set, which is not yet 1.0, I'm inclined to think erring on the  
>>>> side of
>>>> faster/looser may be better.
>>> I think pre-1.0 is the very time that a more transparent  
>>> operation should be encouraged, because non-backwards compatible  
>>> change after 1.0 is considerably more difficult. And given the  
>>> decree that 0.9 is the compatibility freeze point, that seems  
>>> imminent.
>>> Synchronous discussion such as IRC encourages a single-time-zone  
>>> of interaction.
>>> Antony Blakey
>>> -------------
>>> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
>>> Ph: 0438 840 787
>>> One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to  
>>> avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes  
>>> beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.
>>>   -- Bertrand Russell
>> -- 
>> James Arthur
>> Founder
>> <mime-attachment.png>
>> 16 Badswell Lane
>> Appleton
>> Oxford OX13 5JN
>> UK
>> Tel: +44 (0)1865 862 382

View raw message