The annuals idea was agreeable to TC39ers a recent meetings. Whether and
how we cut over was not decided, in my view.
Rushing to the new revolutionary calendar would be a mistake. We (TC39)
need to cash checks we've written, and not with our body :-P.
/be
Angus Croll wrote:
Name names. Who's idea was this? :)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de
<mailto:a...@rauschma.de>> wrote:
That would be my preferred solution: the name affects book covers,
domains, content, etc. = a significant amount of time and money.
Even worse than renaming ES6 now would be renaming it later, though.
On 23 Jan 2015, at 01:44, Arthur Stolyar <nekr.fab...@gmail.com
<mailto:nekr.fab...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Can we leave ES6 to ES6 because it's already here and call ES7 --
ES2016? Since ES7 not here yet and there are not much mentions of it.
2015-01-23 2:39 GMT+02:00 Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org
<mailto:bren...@mozilla.org>>:
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I particularly don't like the idea that things could be
dropped or rushed last minute just because the new years
eve is coming ... this feel like those stories with tight
deadlines where management could easily fail due
over-expectations on all possible 3rd parts alignment (
you know, like those 12 different JS engines out there
.... + spartans )
No last minute slips -- that's a schedule-chicken outcome
(where the cars do not collide but one veers and drives off a
cliff!).
The new stuff has to board its "release train" or its
champions and fans will be sad, and perhaps take a
credibility hit. This doesn't mean larger work must be broken
down into too many pieces, but that is a risk.
Larger work that can track across multiple years is always
risky -- in my experience it very often aims for a target
near Alpha Centauri at sublight speed, when the real action
was over at Tau Ceti due to an FTL breakthrough, but no one
knew at first that (a) FTL was possible; or (b) the Centauri
systems were uninhabitable. If you get what I mean ;-).
(Spartan uses Chakra, last I heard.)
Mature projects can do rapid-er release more easily than
young ones, for sure. I recall 4.2BSD Unix, then 4.3, and a
bit of 4.4.
I do like the idea of having more frequent rolling
releases, but yet I don't know why year-naming would be
the choice.
Does the name matter? You seemed to be objecting on more
substantive grounds. Don't back off to mere quibbling about
labels!
Anyway, please consider keeping ES6 exactly ES6, we will
have time to align the ESX where X = previous ESX +2009
concept.
to Doctor Alex, at this point I think you should really
stick with ES6 or avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
This reminds me: Axel (not Alex) cannot recommend "JavaScript
2015" to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
/be
--
@nekrtemplar <https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar>
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de <mailto:a...@rauschma.de>
rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
