I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting. ________________________________ From: Brendan Eich<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 2015-01-22 20:35 To: Angus Croll<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Arthur Stolyar<mailto:[email protected]>; es-discuss list<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: JavaScript 2015?
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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
