On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> wrote:
> A long time ago I proposed keeping a document around that classified each > language as "stable", "development", or "unstable" (or something to that > effect). The idea is that we'd accept any patch "nearly blind" for an > unstable language, provided it's been available on the JIRA for a couple > days. For "development" we'd probably have some more strict requirements, > but still not require full review before commit, and for "stable" we'd > follow the current model. > > I think this is something that we essentially must do at this point. I'm imagining a matrix of features vs languages that allows both users to know what they can do in their language of choice as well as guide the developers towards what we need to work on to get feature parity. If anyone wants to take a crack at this, I'd be happy to contribute to the effort; it might be a while before I can really get going on this at full speed on my own.
