-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 105
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Meta: Change "Difficult" to "Expensive" in Stage 2 entrance criterion #557
Conversation
CONTRIBUTING.md
Outdated
2. **Difficult to Implement in Userland** | ||
1. Features in Intl must bring something to the table that a third-party library wouldn't be able to do with the same level of efficiency and performance. The champion can cite a heavy locale data dependency or a complex algorithm to satisfy this criterion. | ||
2. **Expensive to Implement in Userland** | ||
1. Features in Intl must bring something to the table that a third-party library wouldn't be able to do with the same level of efficiency, performance, and simplicity. The champion can cite a heavy locale data dependency or a complex algorithm to satisfy this criterion. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nit pick: s/simplicity/complexity
The adjectives for Simple and simplicity are often seen as very subjective and relative to individual experiences.
The meaning of complexity here is not much different but would avoid triggering these issues, I hope so.
1. Features in Intl must bring something to the table that a third-party library wouldn't be able to do with the same level of efficiency, performance, and simplicity. The champion can cite a heavy locale data dependency or a complex algorithm to satisfy this criterion. | |
1. Features in Intl must bring something to the table that a third-party library wouldn't be able to do with the same level of efficiency, performance, and complexity. The champion can cite a heavy locale data dependency or a complex algorithm to satisfy this criterion. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not blocking the approval on my nit picking. It seems good to land one way or another.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM either way (wrt @leobalter's suggestion).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
suggestion(optional)
: since we're revisiting it, would you be open to adjust the same level ...
part?
As of now this sounds like if a proposal is at least on par with the cost of third party, it is passing the bar. I believe our intent here is to say that it has to be significantly more expensive to do X with third-party to pass the bar on extending the standard.
I rewrote the whole sentence to read:
Does this address your concern @zbraniecki ? |
ping @zbraniecki |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm! Thank you for addressing my comment
No description provided.