develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: New list charters

Thread Previous
Bryan C . Warnock
July 31, 2000 20:06
Re: New list charters
Message ID:
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


=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>.


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

Thread Previous Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About