Subject: [Jsonpath] Spec velocity

From: Glyn Normington <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:05:09 +0000

Now that we are entering the final straight and have rough consensus on
most remaining items, I think we should aim for relatively short-lived
and/or small PRs to maximise spec velocity and to avoid the need to rebase
(with the possibility of making mistakes).

Take the current PR 164 on Singular Paths and the newly raised issue 166,
for example. These could easily tread on each other's toes since they need
to edit the same area of the spec.

So I'd like to propose that we merge PRs early and raise issues to cover
any outstanding work that needs to be done. In this case, we need to
finalise whether to allow non-singular paths in existence checks. But
rather than hold up PR 164, I propose we merge the PR now and open an issue
to cover the outstanding work. This will allow immediate progress on issue
166 while we are deciding on how to handle the new issue.

Similarly, I'd like to propose that we use multiple, small PRs where
appropriate (e.g. on issue 136 "In-line examples") to minimise conflicts.
In such cases, I would probably use "to do" lists in the corresponding
issues to keep track of what remains to be done.

Carsten: as the other main active editor, are you comfortable with this
approach?

Everyone: are you comfortable with this kind of faster iterative approach?
Occasionally, it may mean that you have to raise an issue if something is
merged before you have had a chance to comment on a PR.

Regards,
Glyn

---

From: Stefan Gössner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 15:13:57 +0100

+1

Am 09.03.2022 um 15:05 schrieb Glyn Normington:
> Now that we are entering the final straight and have rough consensus 
> on most remaining items, I think we should aim for relatively 
> short-lived and/or small PRs to maximise spec velocity and to avoid 
> the need to rebase (with the possibility of making mistakes).
>
> Take the current PR 164 on Singular Paths and the newly raised issue 
> 166, for example. These could easily tread on each other's toes since 
> they need to edit the same area of the spec.
>
> So I'd like to propose that we merge PRs early and raise issues to 
> cover any outstanding work that needs to be done. In this case, we 
> need to finalise whether to allow non-singular paths in existence 
> checks. But rather than hold up PR 164, I propose we merge the PR now 
> and open an issue to cover the outstanding work. This will allow 
> immediate progress on issue 166 while we are deciding on how to handle 
> the new issue.
>
> appropriate (e.g. on issue 136 "In-line examples") to minimise 
> conflicts. In such cases, I would probably use "to do" lists in the 
> corresponding issues to keep track of what remains to be done.
>
> Carsten: as the other main active editor, are you comfortable with 
> this approach?
>
> Everyone: are you comfortable with this kind of faster iterative 
> approach? Occasionally, it may mean that you have to raise an issue if 
> something is merged before you have had a chance to comment on a PR.
>
> Regards,
> Glyn
>

---

From: Greg Dennis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:13:27 +0000 (UTC)

My question about whether we need 164 hasn't been addressed.  I don't think this PR is required, so merging quickly and opening issues isn't the right action.

  On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 3:15 am, Stefan Gössner<[email-masked]> wrote:   -- 
JSONpath mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath

---

From: Glyn Normington <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:24:27 +0000

Hi Greg

Oh sorry. I've tried to address your concern here:
https://github.com/ietf-wg-jsonpath/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/pull/164#issuecomment-1063275849.
Let's continue in the PR.

Regards,
Glyn

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 19:13, Greg Dennis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> My question about whether we need 164 hasn't been addressed.  I don't
> think this PR is required, so merging quickly and opening issues isn't the
> right action.
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 3:15 am, Stefan Gössner
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> --
> JSONpath mailing list
> [email-masked]