[Council] meeting agenda, 2006-03-23

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Thu Mar 23 08:41:19 CST 2006

> Now back to JEP-0124:
> I'm generally opposed to such large changes to Draft JEPs (which this 
> appears to me to be the case), unless the changes fix deficienies
> JEP-0045 and JEP-0060).  The biggest reason is that it makes it hard
> multiple implementors to properly interoperate, because they need to 
> somehow determine what version of a JEP the other parties have 
> implemented (unless the changes can be 100% ignored).

I agree.

Happily on this occasion these changes can be 100% ignored. They are
also supported by the developers of all the implementations that I am
aware of.

- Ian

More information about the Council mailing list