On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfred...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ snip ] > Each of these standards though would be "Living" standards and would be > updated as need be to reflect current working practices, and so deprecation > of a document would only be a thing if the entire concept fell out of use, > and it would otherwise simply be refurbished to be current. > +1 > I would also like a space under Toolchain:: for documenting the results of > various meetings / group discussions as a collective, and those articles > would be largely write-once -> historical documents to serve as an easy > reference point to show how various policies came to be over time ( Similar > to perl5xxxdeltas ) > +1 > The Toolchain:: namespace itself does not seem to be taken, and if there > is no opposition, I may start the ball rolling at some time by claiming the > namespace. > +1 This all sounds like something that would be great to have. I know I've struggled and learned a lot of this stuff the hard way; it would be great to have some PEP-like references. chrs, john.
