Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 16, 2024, 22:01 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq4jaxo1qu.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <5446ca49e042b104923ac2004d845a5f9018c9d9.1715894135.git.steadmon@google.com>

Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:

> Changes in V3:
> * Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale
>   patch series.

I do not think I deserve Co-authorship for the small changes in the remaining document, as my contributions going from v2 to v3 were mostly line removal ;-).

> +Larger Discussions (with patches)
> +---------------------------------

Reads well and looks sensible.

Show 5 quoted lines

> +Larger Discussions (without patches)
> +------------------------------------
> +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
> +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
> +...

I do not know how strongly assertive you wanted to be, but I suspect that it will read better with "might" -> "may".

Show 6 quoted lines

> ...
> +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
> +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
> +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
> +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
> +that can be more easily debated.

It is a bit fuzzy what "other specific implementation" wants to convey. A mere "RFC" is often an unfinished work-in-progress, and if the "other specific implementation" is different from it, then what it would be? A minimum viable product? A proof-of-concept?

All other parts did read very well.

Not that the above was unreadable, but just my reading hiccupped at around "other specific implementation".

Thanks.