Re: Do we need a powerNetworkFrequency constraint?

Den 25. aug. 2015 18:47, skrev Adam Roach:
> On 8/25/15 00:47, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> powerNetworkFrequency = "50Hz", "60Hz", "default"
>>
>> ...
>>
>> What do people think?
>>
> 
> Do you mean that we want to add this in general, or in the initial
> version of the spec?
> 
> In general, it seems like a good sort of thing to have.
> 
> If you mean in the first version of the spec, then I'm getting a little
> confused about the nature of the "feature freeze" that people seem to be
> selectively invoking. gUM constraints are extensible, easily
> discoverable, and intended to be registered at a later date. This is
> kind of the poster child for something that can be easily added on after
> the initial spec is published.



I think this is a poster child for the idea that desirable constraints
will pop up over time, and we need a process to handle them.

I should have said on my initial post - this is me with my Google
implementor team hat on, saying "we need to do something like this, can
we all agree that this is an OK way to do it?" - my chair hat is
desperately looking for a clue-by-4 to beat my Google hat over the head
with saying "what part of "feature freeze" don't you understand?"....

We might want to deflect the "how do we register it" to the (too quiet!)
thread called "Requirements for constraints maintenance" - if we all
agreed how we intend to handle requests for new constraints, we might
have less of a panic when a new idea for one comes up.

But what I (with my Googler hat on) am looking for is first of all "is
this a good thing to do?" and second "if we do it, is this (in detail)
an OK way to do it?"

Harald

Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2015 18:35:39 UTC