Conversation
We've been using this in practice for a while now, so we should document it more officially. MSC: #2324
|
.o( I wonder why https://11724-24998719-gh.circle-artifacts.com/0/scripts/gen/proposals doesn't work ) |
richvdh
left a comment
richvdh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks good, a few suggestions
Co-Authored-By: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
|
sorry, on reflection you probably knew about the outstanding comments so my bumps aren't very helpful :/ |
|
yea, sorry. I didn't have easy access to a useful editor at the time so just left some comments and reactions to flag that there's still more editing work to be done. |
Co-Authored-By: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
|
@richvdh apologies for the massive delay on this - should be ready to review again. |
richvdh
left a comment
richvdh
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
beyond the suggestions below to address various nits, this feels like an improvement that we should definitely land.
I do think that there's more work to be done here in clarification. Though I very much appreciate the time and effort from @turt2live in writing this up, I don't really feel like the document fits together well as a whole or makes clear reading: in particular it's unclear how the new section relates to the existing "Process" section, since there seems to be significant overlap.
Still, let's land this and aim to iterate rather than waiting for perfection.
Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <1389908+richvdh@users.noreply.github.com>
Yes, the whole page is in desperate need of someone giving it some love. One of the challenges was trying to figure out where to put this without editing the rest of the doc, and hopefully 'process' is moderately on the right track. |
2 participants
We've been using this in practice for a while now, so we should document it more officially.
MSC: #2324