Babel implements multiple variants of this proposal to help TC39 test and gather feedback from the community. As with all proposals, expect changes in the future.

(name subject to bikeshedding)

If you would like to make a code change, go ahead. Fork the repository, open a pull request. Do this early, and talk about the change you want to make. Maybe we can work together on it.

Please do not directly email any Sidekiq committers with questions or problems. A community is best served when discussions are held in public.

I'm closing this issue. If you have any problem, please comment to this issue :-)

That said, I wish more people would talk both sides. Yes, every dependency has a cost. BUT the alternatives aren't cost free either. For all the ranting against micropackages, I'm not seeing a good pro/con discussion.

This thread is more than 5 months old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though. I am aware that this thread is rather old but I still want to make a reply.

Reopening #162

I realize the question was asked 9 years ago, but this question is (still) ranked highly in search results and I came across it today

Here's the last issue where source maps were discussed before the beta release.

The modern sense of "an X about X" has given rise to concepts like "meta-cognition" (cognition about cognition), "meta-emotion" (emotion about emotion), "meta-discussion" (discussion about discussion), "meta-joke" (joke about jokes), and "metaprogramming" (writing programs that manipulate programs).

I think maybe the terms we're using are a bit confusing.

I close the issue but we can continue the discussion.

he first person in Britain to officially have air pollution listed as a cause of death,

deconstructing Brazilian gender roles through their performances

Group Rules from the Admins1NO POSTING LINKS INSIDE OF POST - FOR ANY REASONWe've seen way too many groups become a glorified classified ad & members don't like that. We don't want the quality of our group negatively impacted because of endless links everywhere. NO LINKS2NO POST FROM FAN PAGES / ARTICLES / VIDEO LINKSOur mission is to cultivate the highest quality content inside the group. If we allowed videos, fan page shares, & outside websites, our group would turn into spam fest. Original written content only3NO SELF PROMOTION, RECRUITING, OR DM SPAMMINGMembers love our group because it's SAFE. We are very strict on banning members who blatantly self promote their product or services in the group OR secretly private message members to recruit them.4NO POSTING OR UPLOADING VIDEOS OF ANY KINDTo protect the quality of our group & prevent members from being solicited products & services - we don't allow any videos because we can't monitor what's being said word for word. Written post only.

This question is locked and replying has been disabled.

The best place to let the developers know, and track those bugs is in the bug tracker. There are hundreds of forums online, all over the place in many languages. We can’t be expected to read all of them. Anyone with a launchpad ID (thus, anyone who has an account on this discourse instance) has the capability to file a bug. I’d strongly recommend doing so, for each specific issue. Taking just a few minutes to do that will help tremendously.

When there are imperfections, we rely on users and our active community to tell us how the software is not working correctly, so we can fix it. The way we do that, and have done for 15 years now, is via bug reports. Discussion is great, but detailed bug reports are better for letting developers know what’s wrong.

locked and limited conversation to collaborators

The exact form of the platform is yet to be finalized, and we want to involve you, the community, in helping to provide ideas and test the new contribution workflow!

Onephonologicalenvironmentwheremoreofschwa’scentralizedvowelqualitiesarelikelytobeintactis inword-finalposition

In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.

I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)

I realise this is old, but as it isn’t a forum i see no problem in replying

Feel free to subscribe to the issue (there's button in the right hand column) but do not comment unless you are adding value to the discussion. "Me too" and "+1" are not valuable, nor are use cases that have already been written in the comments (e.g., we know that you can't put <tr> or <dd> elements with a <div>).

The RFC repo (where the reaction was strongly positive) is the place for discussion about what features to add; the decision has been made.

9 day bump

then

Also, as a reminder to everyone, this thread is soft-locked and I will be marking as spam any comments that don't meet the criteria I described above.

@subfuzion That error looks unrelated to the existing discussion.

locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators

Discussion is not necessary, but could be useful for critiquing a pattern. This would be useful for people who are proposing a pattern to the community or for people who want to gather feedback on an experiment.

Some researchers have referred to this type of learning arrangement as anchored discussion.23 When students “talk” with one another about a shared text through digital annotation, evidence suggests.d-undefined, .lh-undefined { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) !important; }.d-undefined, .lh-undefined { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5) !important; }3Lauren Zucker, Jeffrey Pomerantz, Maha Bali annotation affords richer conversation as students pay closer attention to the text, establish more proximal connections between their discussion and the source material, and embrace opportunities to elaborate their ideas, clarify, and learn from the viewpoints of their peers.

It's really useful if your PR relates to an outstanding issue, so please reference it in your PR, or create an explanatory one for discussion. In many cases, features are absent for a reason.

instead of closing immediately, could we discuss some syntaxes that might work? I'm hardly an expert, so I'm not sure I can propose a syntax, but I can try to get the ball rolling:

You’re doing some things I’d like you to stop doing:

No worries, I was just thinking that this issue should probably get necro'd back to open.

Sometimes answering a single question can be very time consuming (such as setting up a benchmark), but discussions tend to stall out if concerns don't get thoroughly addressed.

Further discussion can take place when this has a PR.

This conversation has been locked as too heated and limited to collaborators.

GitHub Issues are preferred for discussion of this specification.

I took the liberty of editing this answer because it's already accepted

locked as too heated and limited conversation to collaborators

Yarn also has an RFC process which may offer a better discussion platform compared to this GitHub issue.

New information that would be useful toward the future usage or troubleshooting of GitLab should not be written directly in a forum or other messaging system, but added to a docs MR and then referenced, as described above.

When you encounter new information not available in GitLab’s documentation (for example, when working on a support case or testing a feature), your first step should be to create a merge request (MR) to add this information to the docs. You can then share the MR in order to communicate this information.

BenchmarkDiscussion

Students continue working ondifferentiated learning activities.(Remote only? Hold discussionswith half of the class at a time.)

As a result, I end up quoting multiple people, sometimes quoting several people back-to-back, before even writing my reply. In those instances it feels like I'm not properly citing those individuals. I feel like it might seem I'm not providing new readers appropriate context for a given quote. It might also be implied that separate quotes are from the same person, leading to mis-attribution.

"When an OP rejects your edit, please do not edit it back in!" Correspondingly, when a user repeatedly does try to edit, understand that something in your framing isn't working right, and you should reconsider it.