|Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Draft of new requirement added|
> "reference to a specific implementation"I see what you mean. I am fine removing it, if you would like, but does seem like we should say something. Or, be prepared to know exactly what to say by Friday (which seems unlikely). :)
Perhaps you could add some words to the effect of "at the moment it is proposed to ..." and give a link reference to your PMI bug. Changing that specific implementation detail later (after M4) or even removing it would not violate our principle of having the "requirements done by M4".
Thanks, (And, thanks goes to Sam Davis for his wiki edits to improve "our" grammar :)
On 12/14/2016 03:47 PM, Wayne Beaton wrote:
I'd rather not include another reference to a specific implementation in a policy document, but being explicit is probably better than talking about the means of specifying the information abstractly.I've opened a bug to track the creation of the field. https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509251 Wayne
Back to the top