Emily Shaffer <emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> - Wording and bulleting format fixes in commit message and body
>
> - Clarify cadence for tests against 'next'
>
> - Attempt to clarify dependency version minimum requirement to something
> reasonable and flexible. Note: This section still probably needs
> better wording; I took a crack at it but it still feels awkward.
> Suggestions welcome, please.
>
> - Be more realistic about finding non-intrusive platform support
> approaches ("we'll look for" rather than "we'll definitely find and in
> fact know a few options in advance")
>
> - Move up "Minimum Requirements" section to the top, so we don't
> bait-and-switch maintainers of platforms who don't even meet the
> baseline but start making effort to set up testing infrastructure and
> so on.
>
> I believe that this version addresses Randall's concerns with the
> "minimum requirements" policy. Are there any other outstanding concerns
> with the policy itself, as written, or is this ready to go in (modulo
> nits)?
I won't be able to speak for Randall, but I didn't see anything
questionable in the changes since the previous iteration (I have
not yet read the whole thing again, which I will later).
Thanks.
