On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Carl Meyer <c...@oddbird.net> wrote: > > I've no desire either to aggravate your RSI or kick you in the teeth! I > understand the multiple competing pressures here and won't stand in the > way of a merge into 1.10 sans DEP if that still seems like the best path > forward to you. It's not like a merge into alpha is the end of the line > in terms of possible design changes or updates (or even possibly > reverts). A DEP could even happen post-merge; that would be unusual but > perhaps still better than none at all. > > I have a couple more comments, more in the line of general thoughts > about the whys and hows of DEPs. > > I do think that DEPs have a significant value that goes beyond just > providing information that could be found elsewhere (e.g. in the > channels documentation). They collect that information (or references to > it) in one place, in a standard digestible format, and formally present > it to the community as a requested change, with rationale and rejected > alternatives (including a fair representation of the objections that > have been raised and your answers to them), and present a formal > opportunity for anyone with concerns to raise them (and give you a > reasonable place to later say "this is precisely when you should have > raised your concerns if you had them") and then also store that in a > stable place for future reference when someone comes by in two years and > can't understand why we did things the way we did. > > (I'm not saying this to put further pressure on, just to defend the DEP > process against the implicit charge that it's possibly-useless make-work > when other documentation has already been written.) > > There's been no clear delineation of what size features should have a > DEP. I think channels, multiple-template-engines, and > reworked-middleware (and migrations, for that matter) are all > rethinkings of long-standing core aspects of how Django works, which in > my mind makes them prime DEP candidates, whereas FTS and password > validation both seem to me like small-to-medium peripheral features that > I wouldn't necessarily have expected to have one. >
I think you're entirely right, Carl - I'm just getting frustrated with myself at this point for not realising sooner and trying to find ways to not do it - people only pay real attention to a patch as you're close to merging and emotionally invested in it, and it's a little exasperating. Jacob has graciously stepped in to help write one, and I am going to have a much-needed evening off from doing Channels stuff, I haven't had a break in a while. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1ur%2B%3Dtw0A2azd%3Dxbqk0PDno%3D3hXuhFXNijOVsa_6QgQb0Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
