Repository navigation
Going public launch bug #150
Description
The current plan is to go public on the 17th of June, 9AM Pacific time.
On that date we'll have:
- Blog post by @lukewagner.
- Blog post by @BrendanEich.
- Blog post on @MikeHolman's blog.
- Tweet @jfbastien (replies only on blink-dev / native-client-discuss).
- Email to emscripten-discuss by @kripken.
- Email to llvm-dev by @sunfishcode / @jfbastien.
- WebKit bug by @pizlonator.
Activity
lukewagner commentedon Jun 11, 2015
Two suggestions from email thread:
jfbastien commentedon Jun 12, 2015
I'm OK with dropping WebAssembly.github.io for now.
I'm OK with
prototypein the names.I did create an experimental repo which should probably hold all future experiments:
third_partyfolder, which in turn makes it easier for non-engineers to evaluate what they can do with code, and making sure engineers don't mess with this.Should we move other experiments there, and only promote experiments to having their own repo when they graduate out of experimental status?
lukewagner commentedon Jun 12, 2015
Thanks @titzer for the rename. I can delete WebAssembly.github.io if noone beats me to it.
The experimental repo makes sense for things that aren't actively being iterated on since otherwise you want the noise isolation that a repo provides (issues, PRs, emails). I'm currently not iterating on polyfill-prototype-1 since I think it has basically proven the points it was built to prove and the next step is blocked on us to start talking about a fully concrete binary format, so I'm fine moving it to experimental. Based on the relatively low activity of the other two experiments, I assume they are mostly in the same category and could be moved as well.
Nit on naming: I take 'experimental' to mean "built for release, but not ready to ship" (i.e., "experimental support' = in a browser behind a flag). OTOH, 'prototype' means "built to throw away or rewrite" which is I think what we're doing here (currently), so I'd rename 'experimental' to 'prototype' to avoid the confusion.
jfbastien commentedon Jun 12, 2015
@lukewagner rename sounds good to me, as well as moving your repo there :)
@titzer / @kg would you be OK doing the same?
MikeHolman commentedon Jun 12, 2015
We'll also be putting out a small blog post (I can send it out to you guys to review after I get IE to look at it).
kripken commentedon Jun 12, 2015
I'll also post something to the Emscripten mailing list, mainly links to the stuff here + context. Let me know if anyone wants to review that beforehand.
kg commentedon Jun 12, 2015
Go ahead and rename my repo, no objections.
jfbastien commentedon Jun 18, 2015
I created the public announcement release.
jbondc commentedon Jun 28, 2015
Fascinating, it would be great to add a history section to understand how the collaboration came about. Over some 🍻 ? Not an expert in compilers but this sort of diversity looks like the future 👍