[nanomsg] Re: The name service for nanomsg
- From: Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:34:32 +0300
Hi Dirkjan,
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Yes, classic feature-creep problem.
>
> I worry about this as well; the current discussion seems to have
> veered in many directions, with no good consensus emerging... Am I
> wrong? If so, can someone summarize the consensus (preferably in a new
> thread)?
>
> I almost feel like there should be an Enhancement Proposal process
> similar to what Python and a bunch of other projects have these days.
>
>
The consensus today, is that I'm doing a prototype, so we can play with it.
Then we can do more weighted decision
--
Paul
Other related posts:
