d at domenic.me
Thu Jan 22 17:37:37 PST 2015
I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting.
From: Brendan Eich<mailto:brendan at mozilla.org>
Sent: 2015-01-22 20:35
To: Angus Croll<mailto:anguscroll at gmail.com>
Cc: Arthur Stolyar<mailto:nekr.fabula at gmail.com>; es-discuss list<mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
The annuals idea was agreeable to TC39ers a recent meetings. Whether and
how we cut over was not decided, in my view.
Rushing to the new revolutionary calendar would be a mistake. We (TC39)
need to cash checks we've written, and not with our body :-P.
Angus Croll wrote:
> Name names. Who's idea was this? :)
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de
> <mailto:axel at rauschma.de>> wrote:
> That would be my preferred solution: the name affects book covers,
> domains, content, etc. = a significant amount of time and money.
> Even worse than renaming ES6 now would be renaming it later, though.
>> On 23 Jan 2015, at 01:44, Arthur Stolyar <nekr.fabula at gmail.com
>> <mailto:nekr.fabula at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Can we leave ES6 to ES6 because it's already here and call ES7 --
>> ES2016? Since ES7 not here yet and there are not much mentions of it.
>> 2015-01-23 2:39 GMT+02:00 Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org
>> <mailto:brendan at mozilla.org>>:
>> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>> I particularly don't like the idea that things could be
>> dropped or rushed last minute just because the new years
>> eve is coming ... this feel like those stories with tight
>> deadlines where management could easily fail due
>> over-expectations on all possible 3rd parts alignment (
>> you know, like those 12 different JS engines out there
>> .... + spartans )
>> No last minute slips -- that's a schedule-chicken outcome
>> (where the cars do not collide but one veers and drives off a
>> The new stuff has to board its "release train" or its
>> champions and fans will be sad, and perhaps take a
>> credibility hit. This doesn't mean larger work must be broken
>> down into too many pieces, but that is a risk.
>> Larger work that can track across multiple years is always
>> risky -- in my experience it very often aims for a target
>> near Alpha Centauri at sublight speed, when the real action
>> was over at Tau Ceti due to an FTL breakthrough, but no one
>> knew at first that (a) FTL was possible; or (b) the Centauri
>> systems were uninhabitable. If you get what I mean ;-).
>> (Spartan uses Chakra, last I heard.)
>> Mature projects can do rapid-er release more easily than
>> young ones, for sure. I recall 4.2BSD Unix, then 4.3, and a
>> bit of 4.4.
>> I do like the idea of having more frequent rolling
>> releases, but yet I don't know why year-naming would be
>> the choice.
>> Does the name matter? You seemed to be objecting on more
>> substantive grounds. Don't back off to mere quibbling about
>> Anyway, please consider keeping ES6 exactly ES6, we will
>> have time to align the ESX where X = previous ESX +2009
>> to Doctor Alex, at this point I think you should really
>> stick with ES6 or avoid the ES at all and use JS 2015
>> 2015" to anything near the Ecma standard, because trademark. :-/
>> @nekrtemplar <https://twitter.com/nekrtemplar>
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at rauschma.de <mailto:axel at rauschma.de>
> rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss