| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Matt Turner wrote: |
| 3 |
>> >> And? Two wrongs don't make a right. |
| 4 |
>> > |
| 5 |
>> > What do you mean by "And?" - it doesn't make much sense as a reply. :\ |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> He means that none of those provide justification. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It seemed that the main argument was that there are too few packages |
| 10 |
> and then then I do think that other categories with few(er!) packages |
| 11 |
> provide lots of justification. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think it is a data point. However, decisions need to make sense on |
| 14 |
their own, not merely in the sense that they're similar to past |
| 15 |
decisions. I think continuity has some value, but not on its own. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
In any case, I consider a small number of packages in a category as a |
| 18 |
warning that something is probably wrong, not really an end-reason for |
| 19 |
rejecting a course of action. If the category is just immature and |
| 20 |
likely to grow then a small number of packages isn't a big deal. If |
| 21 |
the number is small because the category isn't well-defined or adds |
| 22 |
little value, then that is a reason to stop. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives