Re: ReSpec instability

On 04/03/2016 4:46 PM, Joseph Scheuhammer wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I assume you received Shane's email quoted below about reverting to an 
> older ReSpec.  A couple of questions.
>
> 1. Do we want to use the older version for the heartbeats next week?
Yes, if we're going to be able to publish at all. Note the publication 
is for the week after - I'm asking editors to have them ready (and 
approved for publication) by next week so I can queue up the publications.
>
> 2. Do we want to use the 'useExperimentalStyles' for the heartbeats?
We have to - we won't be allowed to publish without the new styles in place.

Michael
>
> I'll start the ball rolling for the core-aam and accname-aam by 
> assuming "yes" to the first question, and changing which verison of 
> respect they use.  I'm inclined to avoid the experimental style 
> sheets, so I'll go that route unless you say otherwise.
>
> BTW, thanks Shane!
>
> On 2016-03-04 4:14 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> We (marcosc and I) know that ReSpec has been unstable the last week.  
>> We are really really sorry.  We are working hard to settle things down.
>>
>> In the interim, we are aware that many of you need to get things 
>> done, and that an unstable respec is making that challenging. If you 
>> are running into issues, you are welcome to use a version of it that 
>> I have put up on a server from before we broke the world:
>>
>> https://spec-ops.io/respec-w3c-common.js
>>
>> If you want to use this, just comment out your current ReSpec line 
>> and add a line like:
>>
>> <script src='https://spec-ops.io/respec-w3c-common.js' 
>> class='remove'></script>
>>
>> This is version 3.2.97.  So if you want the new "styles" you should 
>> set the useExperimentalStyles variable to true.
>>
>> Again, sorry!
>>
>> -- 
>> Shane McCarron
>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>
>

Received on Friday, 4 March 2016 21:54:50 UTC