New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Going public launch bug #150

Closed
jfbastien opened this Issue Jun 11, 2015 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@jfbastien
Member

jfbastien commented Jun 11, 2015

The current plan is to go public on the 17th of June, 9AM Pacific time.

On that date we'll have:

@jfbastien jfbastien added the bug label Jun 11, 2015

@jfbastien jfbastien added this to the Public Announcement milestone Jun 11, 2015

@lukewagner

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lukewagner

lukewagner Jun 11, 2015

Member

Two suggestions from email thread:

  • Unless we're going to do the work to make a nice friendly high-level site, perhaps we should just delete the WebAssembly.github.io repo for now.
  • For the same reason we agreed to rename the 'polyfill' repo to have 'prototype' in the name (avoid confusion as to whether we'd already fixed a format/polyfill), it seems like we should have 'prototype' in the names of v8-native and js-astcompressor.
Member

lukewagner commented Jun 11, 2015

Two suggestions from email thread:

  • Unless we're going to do the work to make a nice friendly high-level site, perhaps we should just delete the WebAssembly.github.io repo for now.
  • For the same reason we agreed to rename the 'polyfill' repo to have 'prototype' in the name (avoid confusion as to whether we'd already fixed a format/polyfill), it seems like we should have 'prototype' in the names of v8-native and js-astcompressor.
@jfbastien

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jfbastien

jfbastien Jun 12, 2015

Member

I'm OK with dropping WebAssembly.github.io for now.
I'm OK with prototype in the names.

I did create an experimental repo which should probably hold all future experiments:

  • Makes it clear that what it contains are experiments.
  • Non-admins can't create repos, making it harder to start collaboration under the WebAssembly umbrella.
  • Makes sure that third party code goes under a root third_party folder, which in turn makes it easier for non-engineers to evaluate what they can do with code, and making sure engineers don't mess with this.

Should we move other experiments there, and only promote experiments to having their own repo when they graduate out of experimental status?

Member

jfbastien commented Jun 12, 2015

I'm OK with dropping WebAssembly.github.io for now.
I'm OK with prototype in the names.

I did create an experimental repo which should probably hold all future experiments:

  • Makes it clear that what it contains are experiments.
  • Non-admins can't create repos, making it harder to start collaboration under the WebAssembly umbrella.
  • Makes sure that third party code goes under a root third_party folder, which in turn makes it easier for non-engineers to evaluate what they can do with code, and making sure engineers don't mess with this.

Should we move other experiments there, and only promote experiments to having their own repo when they graduate out of experimental status?

@lukewagner

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lukewagner

lukewagner Jun 12, 2015

Member

Thanks @titzer for the rename. I can delete WebAssembly.github.io if noone beats me to it.

The experimental repo makes sense for things that aren't actively being iterated on since otherwise you want the noise isolation that a repo provides (issues, PRs, emails). I'm currently not iterating on polyfill-prototype-1 since I think it has basically proven the points it was built to prove and the next step is blocked on us to start talking about a fully concrete binary format, so I'm fine moving it to experimental. Based on the relatively low activity of the other two experiments, I assume they are mostly in the same category and could be moved as well.

Nit on naming: I take 'experimental' to mean "built for release, but not ready to ship" (i.e., "experimental support' = in a browser behind a flag). OTOH, 'prototype' means "built to throw away or rewrite" which is I think what we're doing here (currently), so I'd rename 'experimental' to 'prototype' to avoid the confusion.

Member

lukewagner commented Jun 12, 2015

Thanks @titzer for the rename. I can delete WebAssembly.github.io if noone beats me to it.

The experimental repo makes sense for things that aren't actively being iterated on since otherwise you want the noise isolation that a repo provides (issues, PRs, emails). I'm currently not iterating on polyfill-prototype-1 since I think it has basically proven the points it was built to prove and the next step is blocked on us to start talking about a fully concrete binary format, so I'm fine moving it to experimental. Based on the relatively low activity of the other two experiments, I assume they are mostly in the same category and could be moved as well.

Nit on naming: I take 'experimental' to mean "built for release, but not ready to ship" (i.e., "experimental support' = in a browser behind a flag). OTOH, 'prototype' means "built to throw away or rewrite" which is I think what we're doing here (currently), so I'd rename 'experimental' to 'prototype' to avoid the confusion.

@jfbastien

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jfbastien

jfbastien Jun 12, 2015

Member

@lukewagner rename sounds good to me, as well as moving your repo there :)
@titzer / @kg would you be OK doing the same?

Member

jfbastien commented Jun 12, 2015

@lukewagner rename sounds good to me, as well as moving your repo there :)
@titzer / @kg would you be OK doing the same?

@MikeHolman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MikeHolman

MikeHolman Jun 12, 2015

Member

On that date we'll have: [...]

We'll also be putting out a small blog post (I can send it out to you guys to review after I get IE to look at it).

Member

MikeHolman commented Jun 12, 2015

On that date we'll have: [...]

We'll also be putting out a small blog post (I can send it out to you guys to review after I get IE to look at it).

@kripken

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kripken

kripken Jun 12, 2015

Member

I'll also post something to the Emscripten mailing list, mainly links to the stuff here + context. Let me know if anyone wants to review that beforehand.

Member

kripken commented Jun 12, 2015

I'll also post something to the Emscripten mailing list, mainly links to the stuff here + context. Let me know if anyone wants to review that beforehand.

@kg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kg

kg Jun 12, 2015

Contributor

Go ahead and rename my repo, no objections.

Contributor

kg commented Jun 12, 2015

Go ahead and rename my repo, no objections.

@lukewagner lukewagner closed this Jun 17, 2015

@jfbastien

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jfbastien

jfbastien Jun 18, 2015

Member

I created the public announcement release.

Member

jfbastien commented Jun 18, 2015

I created the public announcement release.

@jbondc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jbondc

jbondc Jun 28, 2015

Contributor

Fascinating, it would be great to add a history section to understand how the collaboration came about. Over some 🍻 ? Not an expert in compilers but this sort of diversity looks like the future 👍

Contributor

jbondc commented Jun 28, 2015

Fascinating, it would be great to add a history section to understand how the collaboration came about. Over some 🍻 ? Not an expert in compilers but this sort of diversity looks like the future 👍

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment