Re: Ed's / Ian's View

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:09 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 22:20 +0100, Nathan wrote:

>> The day you can say the above for *all* applications (given this
>> scenario of some name referring to two things) rather than some, is the
>> day when it'll be an acceptable solution, until then it, like most of
>> the other proposals, only addresses *some* situations. We need a for all
>> here.
>
> Agreed.  Once a pool has been contaminated it's very hard to clean it
> up.  This is why in the draft of section 5.5 that I sent I included
> other scenarios that discuss how to *prevent* that contamination, even
> when you do want to merge graphs from different sources.

I think you're both missing the point of the issue-57 document. The
purpose is to *start* a conversation. The point is neither to present
a complete, sound version of the proposals (that burden would be on
the people who like them), nor to provide exhaustive criticism. It
only needs to say: Someone has proposed to do X. Here are the some of
the consequences of X, secondary problems that would need to be
addressed somehow (later). Then those reading the document can either
decide for themselves, or engage in further discussion. There will be
a followon document that describes the consensus, and all the holes
will have to be plugged before anything gets into it. But we don't
need to plug them now, OR prove them unpluggable.

Received on Saturday, 9 April 2011 22:14:56 UTC