Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Re: New list charters
Thread Previous
From:
Bryan C . Warnock
Date:
July 31, 2000 20:06
Subject:
Re: New list charters
Message ID:
00073123085002.00772@CC789569-A
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Perhaps changed RFCs need to have a CHANGES section that describes
> the changes between the last version and this one. Not an entire
> change history, which is pointless given mail archives. I'm merely
> thinking of a brief summary of what's different. Something on the
> order of:
>
> more examples, added possible threading implementation, discussed
> interaction with formats.
>
> That way an observer wants to keep up but not participate in the day
> to day blab fest can find out which sections they need to read.
>
> Comments?
>
I was thinking that the day-to-day blab fests wouldn't make the RFC in
the first place.
I was assuming something akin to:
1- RFC submission, version 1
2- thrash to death in a list
3- Consensus change to RFC, version 2
4- thrash to death with no results
5- new info requires change
6- Consensus change to RFC, version 3
In this case, only the changes would be enumerated within the RFC, not
the discussions that preceded or ensued.
=head2 CHANGES
=over 4
=item 1
Created.
=item 2
Changed "foo is a silly name for a variable" to "foo is a most
juanderful name for a variable"
=item 3
Added L<this>.
=back
If the changes got to be too many, you could roll the last n number off.
Keep the latest 5, mayhaps?
I don't mind searching the archives for the particular arguments on why
a change was made; I just want an easy way to determine that we've
already been over some ground before for whatever reason.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
(bwarnock@gtemail.net)
Thread Previous