I may have had a cynical tone in my post, but I wasn't rehashing an argument.
Standards, procedures, and policies are important. Maybe I wasn't happy with
what happened back then, but if you re-read my text above you'll see that I'm
actually "on your side" now.
- Don't implement Experimental JEPs. - Do implement Draft JEPs. - Too bad if you implemented something that got superceded.
Those were the words of the council, and these are my words now.
Rachel was suggesting that the certification program might want to recommend
experimental JEPs, and I'm just trying to explain that this is a bad idea.
I can't imagine the JSF have a certification program involving experimental
JEPs, when you consider the nice red warning text that is currently at the
top of all of them. Left hand, meet right hand?
"my side" does not state don't implement experimental JEPs. It advocates being responsible if you choose to do so, but implementing should be a fundamental part of the JEP development process, as I stated in the email, and we'll get to again in a sec.
Perhaps non draft JEPs are not fully certified, but I don't see why they couldn't be ear marked into a certain certification level. This would cause people to look at impls or start them, and then clean up the JEP more quickly. Once it's approved it could become an official part of the certification.
Maybe times have changed, because back then you (read: council) made a big
deal about not implementing Experimental JEPs. I mean it was a really big
deal, like a "don't even touch it" kind of thing. But it has been awhile, so
who knows anymore... but I think this led to the adding of the red warning
text in the JEPs.
But heck, by all means, change this policy if you want. To me, it doesn't
matter, as long as we are all on the same page. However, if the new position
is that implementations of Experimental JEPs are to be encouraged, then the
red text probably shouldn't contain "not recommended" (which, to put things
in perspective, is also in the Deferred and Retracted text).
-Justin
OK, I just reread all the appropriate threads to make sure my statements aren't off base. First, it wasn't a don't touch it kind of thing. It's pretty much always been, don't put it in a fully production system or something that you are unwilling to change. The red warning on the JEPs even clearly allows for impls in an "exploratory fashion". We don't need that debate again though, we just need some clear rules about how they fit into the design of a certification process, perhaps my idea above works?
As to policy changing, I would say it's loosened ever so slightly, but is still the same as it was back then.
--temas
p.s. - Maybe I'm misreading your tone in this email, where it seems you are for the implementation of experimental JEPs on a wider scale, back then you had the "tough cookies" sentiment ;-)
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
