Re: [Specifications] Vocabulary extensions (#182)

> I strongly disapprove of this pull request!

Ok. Indeed this is an imperfect attempt.

> looks like there are several unrelated changes

Indeed - there are several topics onboard
> none of the proposed changes have a related (or mentioned) PR and
> have not gone through some analysis beforehand

I partially disagree - operations with explicit targets were discussed quite extensively; other thing it didn't end up with any specific conclusion

> it literally came out of the blue

I disagree - most of topics touched here were either discussed or at least mentioned; I also did advertised this attempt in various occasions

> Instead of haphazardly submitting PRs we must follow a more structured
> workflow and follow some ground rules as closely as possible

What kind of structured workflow? I agree that we didn't provide any detailed roadmap for future work, but GH is full of unresolved issues that needs to be addressed and should be treated as that roadmap. I remember how we did work in last several years and loo were we are now. 

> each PR should address a specific issue or at least related issues

I can cherry-pick each implemented feature as a separate PR if that will work for you


> each issue should be first discussed, deemed important and have a rough idea of the solution

As I already said - some of the features were discussed - some of them indeed may need some discussion. This is why that PR came anyway. I don't want to raise new issues to address other issues - it's pointless. 

> PR with new features should not only introduce vocabulary elements
> but also extend upon the human-readable part of the spec.

I may agree with this, but this would imply enormous effort on me still having a large risk of a complete failure. Once I confirm that these changes are going in the right direction, I may consider spec changes

I could go one step further and suggest that the prose should even come slightly before vocabulary. That way it could be easier to understand the intent and gauge the effect of said changes. On the other hand a discussion under the related issue would serve that purpose too.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by alien-mcl
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/pull/182#issuecomment-462062366 using your GitHub account

Received on Saturday, 9 February 2019 17:20:13 UTC