From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32CF91184 for ; 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 ; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:27:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicgb1 with SMTP id gb1so41065696wic.1 for ; 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: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:26:50 +0100 Message-ID: To: Jeff Garzik 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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
On T= ue, 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 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.

My sentiments exactly...
--047d7ba9821284ff4e051fcd54eb--