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--