tc39 process-document issues

tc39 / process-document

Document describing the process for making changes to ECMA-262

https://tc39.es/process-document/

30 stars 18 forks source link

issues

Newest

Newest Most commented Recently updated Oldest Least commented Least recently updated

📝 fix redundancy in references to the committee committee

#45 ctcpip closed 3 months ago
0
📝 should -> must

#44 ctcpip closed 3 months ago
0
add missing Oxford comma

#43 michaelficarra closed 4 months ago
0
even out the column widths in the stages table

#42 michaelficarra closed 5 months ago
0
Fix broken link to Ecma website

#41 robpalme closed 7 months ago
1
fix: broken link on TC39 page

#40 ghoullier closed 7 months ago
0
minor corrections

#39 michaelficarra closed 9 months ago
0
refactor the proposal stages table for better communication

#38 michaelficarra closed 7 months ago
5
add a new testing stage

#37 michaelficarra closed 9 months ago
3
add back stage names

#36 michaelficarra closed 9 months ago
1
Clarify spec quality requirements as _entrance_ requirements

#35 ljharb closed 2 years ago
2
Fix typo: completed described → completely described

#34 mathiasbynens closed 2 years ago
0
Remove harmful stage 1 polyfill recommendation

#33 ljharb opened 2 years ago
69
Document req. for changes to stage 3 proposals

#32 jugglinmike opened 2 years ago
7
Remove stage name column

#31 gesa closed 3 years ago
1
Clarify what "no rejection" implies

#30 codehag opened 3 years ago
0
Introduce section on blocking changes

#29 codehag closed 3 years ago
27
Remove duplication of "Input into the process" section

#28 chicoxyzzy closed 4 years ago
1
Add a README linking to the actual document.

#27 tabatkins closed 4 years ago
4
Explicitly require a public repository for Stage 1

#26 mathiasbynens closed 4 years ago
5
Proposal repo should be a requirement

#24 hax closed 4 years ago
6
Proposal repos: not required?

#25 bathos closed 5 years ago
7
Document repository transfers

#23 gibson042 closed 4 years ago
1
Fix broken links

#22 CheungJ closed 6 years ago
0
Add 'Needs Consensus PR' to the document

#21 liminzhu opened 6 years ago
1
fixes #19: support a plurality of editors

#20 michaelficarra closed 6 years ago
0
clarify stage 3 and 4 entrance criteria around editor approval

#19 michaelficarra closed 6 years ago
2
Add language to identify risk areas for a proposal

#18 ljharb opened 6 years ago
8
Suggest that other stage advancement requirements can be articulated, specific to a proposal

#17 littledan opened 6 years ago
2
Stage five

#16 littledan closed 6 years ago
16
Define sufficient in-the-field experience

#15 littledan closed 6 years ago
30
Strengthen Stage 3 and Stage 4 requirements

#14 littledan closed 6 years ago
6
Add Stage 3.5

#13 littledan closed 6 years ago
8
Fix minor typo

#12 squarejaw closed 6 years ago
0
Clarify Stage 0 proposals requirements

#11 Ginden opened 7 years ago
3
Require filing implementation tracking bugs after getting to stage 3?

#10 mathiasbynens opened 7 years ago
3
Make table name more accurate

#9 chicoxyzzy closed 7 years ago
2
Number of maturity stages

#8 chicoxyzzy closed 7 years ago
1
Dates of feature freeze for each version of specification

#7 chicoxyzzy closed 7 months ago
6
Clarify seemingly redundant criterium

#6 mathiasbynens closed 7 years ago
4
Add test262 clarifications

#5 ljharb closed 8 years ago
2
Does the champion have to be a member of TC39?

#4 rauschma closed 7 months ago
11
Reviewer feedback deadline

#3 littledan closed 8 years ago
5
Implementations

#2 domenic closed 9 years ago
2
Clarify criteria

#1 domenic closed 9 years ago
2