Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

[Samuel Solon <ssolon usa net>]

I figured that levels should start at 1 to allow expansion room without
having to go to negative numbers but you prove that either scheme is
insufficient by the following:

At 06:59 PM 8/5/98 -0700, Bowie Poag wrote:
>They ARE going to play with our levels, inevitably.. So, we must make it
>easy, and extensible. The way to do this is by ALWAYS having Level 1 be
>the "most esteemed" level.. Its the brass ring everyone is trying to go
>for. If the future requires more levels, they can simply tack on Level 6,
>or Level 7, or 8 without screwing up the current system in place. By your
>way, you are forced to completely re-define everything from 1 thru N,
>where N represents however many levels are needed.
>
>Trust me on this one.. I had this exact same debate when we were working
>on InSight's SG..And it took them a while for them to "get it". :) By the
>time it clicked in their heads what I was talking about, a good 3 days had
>gone by..and this was live, not on a mailing list. :)
>
>Compliancy levels need to be done in descending order, from 1 at the
>highest, to 5 at the lowest. Not the other way around. Im afraid youre
>painting yourself into a corner by doing otherwise.
>
>Bowie
>
>

So after a change todays level 1 is unrated? Obsolete? To be removed as
quickly as possible?

What's needed, regardless of which way the numbers go, is the "version" of
the style guide that the app conforms to. "GC1-1.5" for example to show
that the app meets "Gnome Compliancy level 1 for version 1.5" of the style
guide.

It should be up to the style guide maintainer to assign the values when
something changes significantly enough to warrant the change.

Sam Solon
ssolon@usa.net