How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
John Cowan
(09 Aug 2020 17:35 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
Lassi Kortela
(09 Aug 2020 17:51 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
Lassi Kortela
(09 Aug 2020 17:54 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
John Cowan
(09 Aug 2020 18:01 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
Lassi Kortela
(09 Aug 2020 18:23 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(09 Aug 2020 19:14 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft Lassi Kortela (09 Aug 2020 19:35 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
hga@xxxxxx
(09 Aug 2020 19:55 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
Arthur A. Gleckler
(09 Aug 2020 21:39 UTC)
|
Re: How to decide when to declare a new SRFI draft
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(18 Aug 2020 06:53 UTC)
|
> As a reviewer, I would prefer a fluent latest draft in the official > SRFI repository (and on the SRFI website), which is then tagged and > archived (by a draft number) from time to time whenever some major > change has been made. +1 > While I may know where to look for your latest author drafts, John, I > may not know this for most other SRFI authors, nor would I be able to > keep up with such information. Thus, seeing changes on the official > SRFI website as soon as possible, makes reviewing much easier. +1 Maybe there could be a running number in the document to indicate which sub-draft it is. The sub-draft number would get erased and reset back to one when a new draft is announced. Sub-draft 1 would not have a visible marker as it's the first version of that draft. Sub-draft 3 would be marked something like this: * Draft #3 published: 2020-07-18 * (Draft #3.2 published: 2020-07-20) * (Draft #3.3 published: 2020-07-27) When draft #4 is published, those parenthesized lines would be deleted. In practice, we'd increment the subdraft number each time when accepting a pull request. At this point (no pun intended) we should stop to consider what is too much work for Arthur as the editor. At the present pace his post is starting to be a substantial obligation for a volunteer. By far the most important thing is that the editor's job doesn't feel like a burden long term. > In any case, I think we should try to do everything to get more > reviewers. Most (recent?) SRFIs are often only reviewed by its small > circle of "insiders". The answer may (unfortunately) be that we already have everyone on board who is substantially interested. Hopefully more people in the future. This year we already have more active people than last year. But in case anyone is lurking and feeling shy about posting comments about SRFIs, please post :) Being an expert is not required, and even the regulars often get things wrong or lack knowledge or ideas, as can be witnessed. There are too many issues to consider for anyone to master everything so additional points of view are helpful.