Adding first draft of incremental delivery spec artifact#67
Adding first draft of incremental delivery spec artifact#67calvincestari merged 11 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
martinbonnin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very cool! Small preference for just incremental instead of incrementalDelivery for brevity but very cool to have this versioned 🚀
Also going back to @martinbonnin's comment above - any preference amongst others too? |
|
@calvincestari @martinbonnin just to make sure I understand, is the I'm indifferent if you're referring to the spec name, so pick your favorite. My only preference on the header value is |
|
I was referring to both, or either. Shorter is maybe better? |
|
|
|
+1 for short parameter |
|
OK, I've shortened all the things related to incremental vs. "incremental delivery"; header value, filenames, etc. I think this is now ready for formal review and then merging. |
martinbonnin
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be worth adding an entry in index.md for better discoverability.
But otherwise very good resource to have around 🤩 , thanks!
jerelmiller
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great! I'll get the PRs I have open updated 🙂. Thanks!
I've got it in |
Done in 33b4062. |
|
What do y'all think about also adding a |
|
Or might it be an option to specify this as |
|
@BoD I was wondering the same thing! I'd appreciate that as well. @phryneas I'd rather have the versions reflect only the specs we've implemented. Even if graphql.js has had 3 versions, let's keep the versions either |
|
Sure, I can try add the implemented legacy spec as |
|
I don't think we have the same information across both versions:
tl;dr - we're missing opposite pieces of information for each version. |
|
@calvincestari Maybe for the legacy one we could also use the RFC, but the previous commit, which as far as I can tell corresponds to the format we implemented? |
|
@BoD that commit definitely looks like the old format so I think you're correct. |
|
|
jerelmiller
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great! Appreciate you handling this!
BoD
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great! Thank you @calvincestari!
Co-authored-by: Martin Bonnin <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Martin Bonnin <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Martin Bonnin <[email protected]>
Getting something documented that we can always refer back to.
Was expanded to include the first implemented version of the RFC, circa July 2020.