Skip to content
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

Resolve #1007 - say what the draft reprsents #1010

Merged

Conversation

@tjcrowder
Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 22, 2017

Fixes #1007.

@rwaldron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 22, 2017

This implies that @bterlson has to remember to delete this section for the version that gets voted on (for publication) by the GA every June.

@allenwb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 22, 2017

Sure does, there is a whole set of steps required for Ecma publication. That's part of what makes in an actual standard rather than a spec. some random people decided to write and put out there.

(BTW, sometimes we've screwed up some of those steps. we probably need a check list)

@tjcrowder

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 23, 2017

@rwaldron - Yes -- to allow for that, in the PR I made sure to put it in the id=metadata-block that's already removed for snapshots, so it wouldn't be an extra step.

@littledan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 25, 2017

A couple nits for the text:

  • It includes not just Stage 4 proposals but also things written as patches without going through the stage process.
  • We're generally careful to avoid the word 'browser' in most places like this. How about 'implementation'?
  • You could mention that we don't publish errata against older spec snapshots and bugs are fixed here (which gives meaning to 'most accurate').
@rwaldron

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 25, 2017

I made sure to put it in the id=metadata-block that's already removed for snapshots, so it wouldn't be an extra step.

Ah, I actually didn't see that because:

Thanks!

@tjcrowder

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 25, 2017

@littledan - Good points all, I can't believe I wrote "browser" there, I'm normally quite picky about not saying "browser." "Implementation" sounds good.

Also useful comments over on the issue itself if anyone here wants to weigh in on them. Later this week I'll update the PR with changes from both here and there.

@tjcrowder tjcrowder closed this Jan 3, 2019
@tjcrowder tjcrowder deleted the tjcrowder:resolve-1007-say-what-draft-represents branch Jan 3, 2019
@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 3, 2019

Are you no longer interested in the underlying issue, or just in this PR?

@tjcrowder

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jan 3, 2019

@ljharb - sigh Embarrassingly, I'd misremembered that this had been rejected declined when in fact it's still open. Note to self: Don't overdo cleanup. What's my best course of action here?

@ljharb

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 3, 2019

Undelete the branch and reopen the PR?

@tjcrowder tjcrowder restored the tjcrowder:resolve-1007-say-what-draft-represents branch Jan 3, 2019
@tjcrowder tjcrowder reopened this Jan 3, 2019
@tjcrowder

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jan 3, 2019

@ljharb - Thanks again. I thought I'd deleted my repo, but you're right, I just deleted the branch. double sigh I'm not an incompetent, I just play one on github sometimes... :-)

Fixes #1007.
@ljharb ljharb force-pushed the tjcrowder:resolve-1007-say-what-draft-represents branch from c9b1efe to 1e00ac2 Oct 4, 2019
@ljharb
ljharb approved these changes Oct 4, 2019
Copy link
Member

left a comment

This seems to match the intent of the comments both here and in the linked issue, #1007.

Since it won't end up in the yearly edition regardless, I'm going to go ahead and merge it now, but further refinements are more than welcome.

@ljharb ljharb merged commit 1e00ac2 into tc39:master Oct 4, 2019
0 of 2 checks passed
0 of 2 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build is in progress
Details
netlify/ecma262-snapshots/deploy-preview Deploy preview processing.
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.