On 2024.05.16 15:01, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Josh Steadmon <steadmon@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 ;-). All right, switched it to Helped-by :) > > +Larger Discussions (with patches) > > +--------------------------------- > > Reads well and looks sensible. > > > +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". Fixed here and in the next line. > > ... > > +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? Ack, will reword this. > > All other parts did read very well. > > Not that the above was unreadable, but just my reading hiccupped at > around "other specific implementation". > > Thanks.
