On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 05:54:35PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> > Your suggest opens the doors for a horrible pile of spaghetti over the
> > years. Consider... we have developers in contributors, sponsors in
> > donors, resources in links on and on and on.
> >
> > It is a mistake, flat out.
>
> On this, we obviously disagree.
It seems to me that on this topic, there are two points of view here.
To caricature, the first view is that categorization should follow the
principle of least astonishment. Josh's patch attempts to reorganize things
that way. The second view is that the framework has features to make
opacity of categorization not a big deal.
From my point of view, it would be very nice if someone could explain why
fixing this opacity isn't a good idea. In general, it is surely a good idea
to make things less confusing or surprising when one has the opportunity.
What is the reason _not_ do to this?
A
