Re: [cdt-dev] CDT extensions Proposal

["Alain Magloire" <alain@xxxxxxx>]

> we should do as much of this
> design stuff in as visible a fashion as we can.


I'm starting to take issue at this type of comment 8-).
(Please note the smiley, here)


<rant>

I've work/maintain many FSF/GNU projects and other open source work,
it certainly does not mean that every aspect down to gory details must be
discuss in a mailing list.  Design by committe, in my experience,
is fastiduous and cumbersome, better to get a few individuals to make a
proposal, submit it to the community for feedback and again to the drawing
board 'till something right.
Certainly some relevant discussion should be place in the list, the goal
being communication and awareness to avoid duplications and also to give
good overview on where things are heading.
 

Things are done informally now:
- (1) make a proposal
- get the feedbacks and repeat (1) ad nauseaum.
- implement by iterations
- fire patches, if required.
...


Dave's point here, is: There seems to be some misunderstanding on
the cdt-extension proposal,  we should probably clear this in the
documentation and resubmit the proposal but meanwhile it seems to
be a roadblock lets take this offline maybe after that we can come up
with a better wording.

Folks are aware of the Open Source nature of the CDT, everything is
open and done in the open,  having a few emails offlines does not put this
at risk.  It is more a question of efficiency to get the job done. 

Resources are scarces,  deadlines approaching fast and lot
of things to do before calling the CDT a first class IDE.

</rant>


Note: Sean, this was not directed at you 8-) of course.  I wanted
to clear this out.