RFC-1: author response #258
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Automated Review URLs |
will-moore
reviewed
Aug 30, 2024
|
This pull request has been mentioned on Image.sc Forum. There might be relevant details there: https://forum.image.sc/t/ngff-rfc-process-proposal-draft-now-available/90181/3 |
will-moore
reviewed
Aug 30, 2024
|
Thanks, all, for the endorsements. One last call for endorsements or other clarifications before I send this out for re-review. |
github-actions bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 11, 2024
RFC-1: author response SHA: d2216ef Reason: push, by @joshmoore Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Just barely in time to have met my summer goal of replying to the reviews of RFC-1, I'm opening this update to the RFC process proposal. There is likely some need for clarifications before the changes are merged and sent out for re-review (R1). I would ask interested members of the community two favors:
A. Endorsements (easier)
Since the first version of RFC-1 in #222 did not exist in order to request endorsements, I did not request them. Now that RFC-2 and RFC-3 along with #253 and #254 (a.k.a. RFC-4 and RFC-5) have successfully demonstrated the joy of endorsing RFCs, I would ask anyone who supports RFC-1 to add an emoji below. (Instructions provided)
B. Clarifications (bit more work)
Additionally, if you would like to give a careful read of the document and identify anything that is confusing, illogical, or otherwise to be avoided, I'd appreciate the additional eyes. You are additionally welcome to submit an additional, long-form Comment. (Examples are in the built webpages: https://ngff--258.org.readthedocs.build/rfc/1/comments/)
Reviewers are of course welcome to be involved in the clarifications, but need not do so.