incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si>
Subject Re: [Apache Bloodhound] Proposals/BEP-0003 modified
Date Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:55:36 GMT
Cool, thanks for the explanations. It actually makes perfect sense.

Peter

On 15 November 2012 17:36, Olemis Lang <olemis@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/15/12, Branko Čibej <brane@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > On 15.11.2012 16:33, Peter Koželj wrote:
> >> Maybe I misunderstood how this BEP thing should work.
> >> I think that the only correct way of doing this that conforms with
> Apache
> >> rules would be to discuss things on ML first. BEP is a nice add-on but
> >> can
> >> not be anything more then a summary of a ML discussion.
> >>
>
> Well , in draft mode not necessarily . Draft proposals are work in
> progress so they may be all wrong , and even rejected outright or
> after some discussion. A Final BEP **MUST** actually include **ONLY**
> what's been agreed upon on the ML , but e.g. diagrams, pictures, mind
> maps, as well as very specific details might not reach the ML at all .
> the discussion about them , well definitely yes.
> ;)
>
> >> Could be that my interpretation of the ML role is a bit too "strict" :)
> >
> > The mailing list is the preferred discussion forum, sure. Which does not
> > imply that ideas and drafts should never appear anywhere else.
> >
>
> I agree . It is hard to understand a proposal and see it as a whole by
> putting all the parts together while reading ML discussion threads ,
> without knowing whether something is ok or not . That's what proposals
> are for . To see the subject as a whole .
> ;)
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Olemis.
>
> Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
> Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
>
> Featured article:
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message