Yes, I was wondering about that. The Policy needs to be defined as part of this case.
Making it pretty and posting it can be decoupled from this case. The TCR you proposed cleverly makes the "prettifying" the project team's job rather than the default value of "plocher". 8^) - jek3 John Plocher wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> John Plocher wrote: >>> "codifies the ... design pattern that it used". > >> I'm at an absolute loss as to how you expect us to approve something >> we haven't >> seen. Do you regularly hand out blank checks? > >> But its not just wordsmithing into a best practice. Its defining a >> yet undefined policy. > > > I think we are talking at cross purposes, and are in fact in violent > agreement. > > I believe that we both believe that: > > This set of cases is explicitly setting precedent WRT how > to install FOSS components that require the ability to have > multiple co-installed versions. > > /This/ discussion is happening under the php5 topic, but is > applicable to the larger SAMPP proposal and all of its > sub-components. > > Future FOSS-derived cases will also have this multi-version > install requirement, and so require that this precedent be > well articulated and reusable. > > As part of this review, the details of such a co-install > policy will be hammered out. > > The point of my previous messages was simply that > > Given that the policy (whatever it is) will be set by this > review, the action item to write up that policy and publish it > as a best practice can safely be decoupled from the tasks > the project team needs to do /this week/. > > -John > > > >
