How to structure the discussion of Proposal A

[glyn]

Following on from vmware-labs/yaml-jsonpath#12 (comment):

Yes, let's discuss.
I'd prefer to not branch out into actual implementations, but rather centralise this - quite probably over at json-path-comparison. The goal is to allow other authors to join the discussions (even if we will not capture many of the major implementations it seems).

Yes, a central discussion will be best.

I don't know how to structure this though. We could start with Github issues. If we find this is hard to structure, we could try moving into the wiki later.

Agreed. Issues will be easier to manager, I think. A wiki can easily become sprawling and out of date (and is not easily versioned). Perhaps the relevant issues could be labelled as Proposal A or similar?

I suggest we also raise one issue against each implementation pointing at the list of labelled issues, since some of the authors might be unaware that this discussion is even happening. What do you think?

[cburgmer]

+1 to tagging and making the discussions visible.

And happy to start jumping to the other implementations bug trackers and ask for participation!

As I've been all over once, bringing news of bugs and failures, maybe they'd welcome a fresh face? :)

[glyn]

Happy to do that, but it would be great to get the list of issues fully populated (as I have some others in the pipeline) and label the Proposal A issues so I can easily refer to them all. I'll try to raise the remaining issues this week.

[glyn]

@cburgmer I've raised the issues on Proposal A. Please could you label them?