[Zope3-dev] Development methodology (Re: [Zope-CMF] Future CMF) (rant)

[Jeremy Hylton]

>>>>> "LM" == Lalo Martins <lalo@laranja.org> writes:

  LM> My suggestion is that we move to a model more similar to the PEP
  LM> system. The *first* artifact necessary for a project is a
  LM> prototype. If the author doesn't yet know the details, it's ok
  LM> to raise a discussion on the list or IRC, but then it isn't yet
  LM> officially a "project", just a discussion.

I feel obligated to defend the PEP process against misrepresentation,
since I helped develop it.  The PEP guidelines are clear in
recommending that the PEP be written before the reference
implementation.

PEP 1 says:

    Standards Track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and
    a reference implementation.  The PEP should be reviewed and
    accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a
    reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP.
    Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form
    of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered
    Final.

An important motivation for the PEP process was to get design work
done before coding.  By the time you have a prototype, you often
commit yourself to design decisions made in the prototype.

In practice some people code first or code at the same time, that's
just the way they work.

Jeremy