Adam Turoff writes:
> I want to assert to the reader that there have been no substantive
> changes since v3 if an RFC was frozen at v3, but is currently v5.
>
> A "Frozen Since: v3" attribute should make this apparent.
Sure. And rather than rediddling all the other RFCs, only introduce
this whe
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 12:18:19PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I'm against fractional version numbers on the grounds that it's
> another piece of knowledge that must be held before someone can
> understand the system (think of 5.004_54 and how hideous that system
> was). Integers imply all
Adam Turoff writes:
> >From here on out, Frozen RFCs shall remain Frozen. Should the maintainer
> wish to clarify them after they have been frozen, the version number
> will increment by some fractional value (.01?), and a
> "Clarified: DD MMM " header will be added to the metadata.
>
> Obj
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 02:04:51AM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
> 2000-09-18-01:35:42 Adam Turoff:
> > Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
>
> An interesting puzzle. As the author of RFC 70, I've felt like I
> should make some updates, but they've been utterly trivial
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:12:33PM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> Some background would help--how is Larry being fed these RFCs?
By pointing his browser to http://dev.perl.org/rfc/. Just like the
rest of us.
I seriously doubt he's using Grail or tkWeb as his browser though. :-)
Z.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 02:18:50AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 01:35:42AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
> >
> > Problem: Frozen RFCs are being updated.
>
> Solution #4: Slip the RFC status back to '
John Porter writes:
> I for one hope he's not doing that, because it would tend to favor
> ideas that made it Frozen status sooner. I don't believe the temporal
> aspect of these things is relevant at all.
I'm not feeding Larry anything. He's been watching discussions as
RFCs evolve, and is wel
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Adam Turoff wrote:
> Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
>
> A status change from "Frozen" to "Retired" may be acceptable. Such
>
> So, what's everyone else think? I really don't want to write up
> an RFC about this. :-)
My thoug
Jeremy Howard wrote:
> how is Larry being fed these RFCs? Is he being
> sent a list of 'Frozen' RFCs, as they freeze. That would seem to make sense,
> since then he can review the finished documents as soon as they're ready.
I for one hope he's not doing that, because it would tend to favor
ideas
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 01:35:42AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
> >
> > Problem: Frozen RFCs are being updated.
>
> Solution #4: Slip the RFC status back to 'developing'.
>
> If someone updates a frozen
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 01:35:42AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> Background: RFCs should be in development until frozen or retired.
>
> Problem: Frozen RFCs are being updated.
Solution #4: Slip the RFC status back to 'developing'.
If someone updates a frozen RFC, its obviously developing again.
11 matches
Mail list logo
