Some criteria based on rough consensus #157
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
csarven
requested review from
kjetilk,
justinwb,
RubenVerborgh,
dmitrizagidulin and
timbl
|
I'd like to suggest that technical objections to the criteria should be taken up in the referenced issues in order to better preserve the rationale in context of how they came through. |
|
Important formatting question: can we make sure we line-break at 80 chars, which is best practice for GitHub-hosted source code and specs? Having essentially "one line per paragraph" leads to way too many UI problems in reviewing. |
RubenVerborgh
approved these changes
Apr 4, 2020
justinwb
reviewed
Apr 8, 2020
justinwb
approved these changes
Apr 12, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Commits include some of the criteria from the issues based on rough consensus. Topics vary but some emphasis on "resource access".
The request for review is to confirm what's captured here is accurate ie. the raw criteria. Text needs to be revised and re-organised in the spec but that is intended to be addressed in a future PR.
Edit: I'd like to suggest that technical objections to the criteria should be taken up in the referenced issues in order to better preserve the rationale in context of how they came through.