Adapt existing specs to lifecycle framework #177
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hey @yusefnapora I would like to join the interest group for Pubsub, Gossipsub, and Episub if possible |
|
awesome thanks @vasco-santos |
|
I'll join the IG for MDNS. |
|
I'm going to go ahead and merge this in - if anyone ended up in the wrong groups or would like to add yourself to one, just submit a new PR to fix things up. Thanks all! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hey all, I've been going through the existing specs and trying to see how they fit to the lifecycle / maturity framework from #169.
Here's what I came up with:
I'm also in all the Interest Groups, but I got tired of typing my own handle 😛
I mostly grabbed people out of the PR discussions to put into interest groups. If you see yourself in any and don't want to be, please speak up!
Likewise, @libp2p/go-team, @libp2p/javascript-team, @libp2p/rust-team if you dont see yourself and wouldn't mind joining an interest group, let me know.
My feeling is that the Interest Groups for these specs will be pretty low-overhead in terms of attention needed, at least compared to new and developing specs.
I categorized everything as 3A (Recommendation/Active) except for rendezvous (since it seems to still be a working draft), and TLS 1.3, which I marked as a Candidate Recommendation since it's go-only at the moment.
All feedback welcome :)