The Road to 2.18

Christian Robottom Reis kiko at
Mon Mar 8 20:18:27 UTC 2004

Again, on my behalf,

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 06:16:36PM +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> So far, no-one on the core team has had enough time to spare, or 
> prioritised this high enough, for it to happen. And although the 
> decision on what code to accept is justdave's, the list of people that 
> _I_ personally would trust to do this work is not very long at all. The 
> serious consequences that could arise if we mess this up mean that this 
> is not a situation where we can knock something together and refine it 
> incrementally.

I'm sure there is a better alternative than stalling all work on this
subject till someone comes up with the perfect approach. I honestly
think that:

    a) CVS HEAD (or a branch if we want to do that) can take some
    breakage if it makes integration of this easier -- hey, we file
    and fix bugs on regressions all the time. The design has to be 
    agreed upon beforehand, but not all the itty bitty details.

    b) it's possible to break the work into smaller bits -- as would
    have been possible for the DB-independence work and many other
    large changes we need to do. Instead of saying that it's dreadfully
    complicated, patch authors need to sit down and take the time to cut
    it up into bits, and making sure that at least one core member is
    interested enough to understand the bits.

As for whether custom fields is a good idea or not, I don't want to
argue about that any longer -- if a good enough design and
implementation is reached, I would vote for including it. Unless
somebody has a better workaround to propose.

Take care,
Christian Robottom Reis | | [+55 16] 261 2331

More information about the developers mailing list