Pascal Costanza pc@p-cos.net writes:
Ingvar Mattsson has submitted a new version of CDR 2 which is now available at http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/
I know that this isn't in the original contract, but I'd really like it if previous, superseded versions of CDRs were available, ideally with some description of why a change was made. Would there be scope in the CDR process to either encourage or enforce this, and is it technically feasible to make such earlier versions accessible?
(so for example http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/newest/ is the same as http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/, while there would also be http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/v1 in this case.)
Cheers,
Christophe
On 11 Nov 2006, at 13:51, Christophe Rhodes wrote:
Pascal Costanza pc@p-cos.net writes:
Ingvar Mattsson has submitted a new version of CDR 2 which is now available at http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/
I know that this isn't in the original contract, but I'd really like it if previous, superseded versions of CDRs were available, ideally with some description of why a change was made. Would there be scope in the CDR process to either encourage or enforce this, and is it technically feasible to make such earlier versions accessible?
(so for example http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/newest/ is the same as http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/, while there would also be http://cdr.eurolisp.org/document/2/v1 in this case.)
I think it should be technically feasible to do this. Currently, the CDR website is done manually, so providing extra directories where old versions are kept shouldn't be problematic.
Of course, we can only encourage authors to provide rationales for changes, not force them.
The issue that I currently see (and haven't anticipated) is that CDR 0 is fixed by now and cannot be changed anymore (without violating the CDR principles). The text of the CDR process is included in CDR 0, together with what we encourage the authors and submitters to do, etc.
On the other hand, CDR itself can start to deviate from CDR 0, and when a sufficient amount of changes have been made to the CDR process, we can issue a new CDR for describing CDR. [1] The recent suggestions by Nikodemus and you aren't strong deviations that are in conflict with CDR's original goals, so I don't see a fundamental problem here.
What do the other CDR editors say?
Pascal
[1] Ah, I love these metacircularity issues.... ;)
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:07:51 +0100, Pascal Costanza pc@p-cos.net wrote:
The issue that I currently see (and haven't anticipated) is that CDR 0 is fixed by now and cannot be changed anymore (without violating the CDR principles). The text of the CDR process is included in CDR 0, together with what we encourage the authors and submitters to do, etc.
On the other hand, CDR itself can start to deviate from CDR 0, and when a sufficient amount of changes have been made to the CDR process, we can issue a new CDR for describing CDR. [1] The recent suggestions by Nikodemus and you aren't strong deviations that are in conflict with CDR's original goals, so I don't see a fundamental problem here.
What do the other CDR editors say?
I think that even if the deviations aren't big, we should nevertheless track them somehow, otherwise it doesn't make sense to have CDR 0 at all. I'd propose that (assuming we want to change something) we either release a new CDR which replaces CDR 0 (which is to be withdrawn) or that we decouple CDR itself from CDR documents.
-
Christophe Rhodes -
Edi Weitz -
Pascal Costanza