Somebody signing messages as Florian Schmaus wrote:
On 01/12/2023 03.46, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:Has this been discussed much before? SCE clearly calls out OX as inspiration, but especially since both are still experimental would it not make sense to "reverse the arrow" and have OX be a profile of SCE?Yes this is probably sensible.
Glad you agree.
I assume the effort that comes with a namespace bump is why some people believe we should introduce breaking changes without a namespace bump for experimental XEPs [1]. Nevertheless, the cost of the resulting interoperability chaos is far higher than proper namespace bumps.
Certainly there are many changes that are not breaking and don't need a namespace bump, but I doubt this is one of them. Are there other changes you expect to be worth "bundling" with the next namespace bump?
I do think there is some cost to *not* doing the change sooner however, and that is the risk that even more implementations will implement the currently-published version and thus even more will have to do rework after the changes. Perhaps if we at least put it in a draft PR then people can see how it will be when implementing?
1. Introduce a pre-experimental phase for XEPs similar to IETF's I-Ds, where the XEPs do not have a number, do not require council approval, and changes do not require a namespace bump. Of course, the XEP's header must clearly and visibly state these conditions.
I honestly don't think this would be a change. Sure, we have PR and inbox phase, but as you say in the end sometimes we care about pain to implementations more than we care about what the process specifies. Already experimental specifies to not use these XEP in production software and to expect changes at any time, yet in practise people do deploy experimental XEP implementations widely and so we are incentivized to do things like namespace bumps and careful updates even there. I think if we move things down from experimental to PR or draft PR status we will find people implementing draft PRs in production software (I've certainly been guilty of that at least once) and end up in the same situation.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
