The definition is fine. The fact that it’s 4 years old is irrelevant. What’s not clear once you read that doc?
Please just revert your changes and make a new bead. There’s no reason to have so much discussion on this… > On Jun 6, 2017, at 11:18 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Imposing your different opinion in others is not the Apache Way. > > How am I’m imposing anything here Alex? It is you that's instating that just > in time code that follows the PAYG principal as documented and that has zero > practical overhead is not PAYG. > > From my understanding several people are unclear of what PAYG actually is and > there are several differing options on what it is. Perhaps the definition > that you pointed to needs to be updated as you said it is 4 years old. > > Wouldn’t it be best to document it so we can all be on the same page? > > Thanks, > Justin
