Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

Re:Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive by roca on Sunday December 03, 2017 @04:01PM (#15839567)

The alternative to a "living document" is "we have a bunch of updates and errata, and you're going to have to piece together the current version yourself from many sources".

If you really need an unchanging version, download some version and use that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive by userbinator on Sunday December 03, 2017 @05:24PM (#15840003)

No, the alternative is a versioned document.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive by roca on Sunday December 03, 2017 @07:12PM (#15840478)

These documents are versioned in VCS. The core issue is that either you update the master document every time you have a fix, or you don't.

If you do, it's a living standard.

If you don't, then people have to cobble together the latest version from various sources.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive by zaarn on Monday December 04, 2017 @03:07AM (#15842375)

Or alternatively, follow a strict release cycle, ie, once a year and publish that. Have all standards follow this cycle.

The choices aren't "commit everything to master" or "commit everything into various versions".

A strict release cycle also prevents having some hype extension which only a few people actually use since it takes more effort and dedication to get stuff into the standards.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive by roca on Monday December 04, 2017 @05:50PM (#15848306)

Why would you want your published version to exclude up to a years worth of fixes for known issues?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive by zaarn on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @09:17AM (#15851803)

Why would you want an only 3 week old version with an unknown number of untested and unproven features?

[ Parent | on HN ]