search

fsfe / reuse-docs

REUSE recommendations, tutorials, FAQ and specification
https://reuse.software
19 stars 20 forks source link

Fix exception identifier #10

Closed silverhook closed 5 years ago

silverhook commented 6 years ago

Fixes #4

silverhook commented 6 years ago

@jonasob Sounds the right way forward, yes.

silverhook commented 5 years ago

@carmenbianca, since we’re now working on 3.0, I think we’re well within the reach of merging this.

carmenbianca commented 5 years ago

Should we still do a 2.1?

silverhook commented 5 years ago

I think it’s fine to just got for 3.0 now and skip 2.1. There are big changes coming up anyway.

If I followed correctly, the biggest issues were hot-fixed and merged by @jonasob into 2.0 already.

TBH, I think this would be one of the few changes that I would like to still see in 2.x, if we decide to have an update to 2.x still.

carmenbianca commented 5 years ago

I don't think we really want to maintain 2.x. Current plans (as I understand) is to leave old versions of the spec in a file in this repository, and to keep only one up-to-date version on the website. If people want an older version, they can find it in the repository.

3.0 should be live quite soon. I think. Depends a little bit on how @mxmehl views the ideal timeline.

silverhook commented 5 years ago

Simply deprecating 2.x makes sense to me.

In any case I suggest that before the 3.0 spec launch you leave it in call for comments mode for a reasonable time and promote it in relevant forums. This is a spec, not code – so release often, release early is not the ideal mantra ;)

mxmehl commented 5 years ago

In any case I suggest that before the 3.0 spec launch you leave it in call for comments mode for a reasonable time and promote it in relevant forums. This is a spec, not code – so release often, release early is not the ideal mantra ;)

I agree, and that's basically all opinion I have regarding the timeline – besides the fact that I would love to have it as early as possible :)