1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32CF91184
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:27:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com
[209.85.212.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4EE233F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:27:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so41065696wic.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=cJVEPfaIb6JCQ6W54kzLogBKmcfi6d0ujFVI/eXcUJs=;
b=kNZfpCMugAH71Mo/y+X6+soVb31u9zSYKz+W3edUw653MotshYTU0dc90u/6GHiLyQ
kxCnU2/mKSrg4cysreiU4mlz/PM9n03zJ72g2JFMPisel58D6z7v6y0WXxro9mrXqRzv
pEEgmHBPFb2X8xLnazJ039AvF1VGlMbmKEwTHhLArtnfcaYVSMf383sfX4sI3f602mN+
MiNMbICwVgK5OYpC2LmBEZBhGLZ9HgoV9nrc/9sXBP8a4LiVjmVZvkPrtULCIOtdTkY7
eZM5ui6twkAt5nOvrJfi+VYcksi5MPcCCBSe5aJXMwQ3dpLKL0OXct5pu4GRad3VaIPs
P3Xg==
X-Received: by 10.194.191.164 with SMTP id gz4mr42718549wjc.21.1442341630310;
Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.21.200 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcafXgg5xpQjE8uSfp-2y59XRaCUr9w5yNEoVo6GygYzZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcY8Vy+k+5BaBS+jV6D6tmSXrok8rAxoPxxKOzUhyPWgMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvSUTrPZa0mQvBsQaYkMN3NPXVB_Ay6RJNivq-agUoUww@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcafXgg5xpQjE8uSfp-2y59XRaCUr9w5yNEoVo6GygYzZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:26:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzuha2mA7VgmtdgsYmK8c0121MiEi52nKMNB0VPqFYNk4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba9821284ff4e051fcd54eb
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
HK_RANDOM_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] libconsensus and bitcoin development process
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:27:12 -0000
--047d7ba9821284ff4e051fcd54eb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem comes with the impact of an unfocused stream of refactors to
> key code.
>
> For example, there is much less long term developer impact if refactoring
> were _accelerated_, scheduled to be performed in a one-week sprint. There
> is a lot of breakage, yes, but after that week the average level of
> downstream patch breakage is significantly lower. A "rip the band-aid off
> quickly rather than slowly" approach.
>
My sentiments exactly...
--047d7ba9821284ff4e051fcd54eb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:jgarzik@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@gmail.com</a>></span>=
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The problem=
comes with the impact of an unfocused stream of refactors to key code.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>For example, there is much less long term developer i=
mpact if refactoring were _accelerated_, scheduled to be performed in a one=
-week sprint.=C2=A0 There is a lot of breakage, yes, but after that week th=
e average level of downstream patch breakage is significantly lower.=C2=A0 =
A "rip the band-aid off quickly rather than slowly" approach.</di=
v></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My sentiments exactly...</div></di=
v></div></div>
--047d7ba9821284ff4e051fcd54eb--
|
