[rust-dev] Next week's older RFCs
glaebhoerl at gmail.com
Sun Jul 20 15:27:06 PDT 2014
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Nick Cameron <lists at ncameron.org> wrote:
> Yes, this is the right place for meta-discussion.
> I'll make sure to be stricter about commenting on the PRs in the future.
> The aim of this email is only to summarise the discussion so far, it
> shouldn't add new opinions or comments beyond applying our 'rules' for
> accepting PRs in the most uncontroversial manner. Obviously that is kind of
> a fuzzy statement, but I think you are right that here I didn't quite stick
> to that. Sorry.
Yes, this sounds sensible to me. Thanks for explaining.
> In general, I agree with your last point, but it takes considerable time
> and energy to have an active role and that is in limited supply, so it is
> always a trade off on whether any particular person gets involved with a
> particular RFC. Having said that, the vast majority of the discussion for
> an RFC should always be happening on the RFC.
I can really, really sympathize with the limited time and energy problem,
because I have it as well. Following that line of thought, we should
consider the fact that most contributors have even less time and energy,
and aren't compensated for it. As such, any steps, even incremental, in the
direction of a more engaged and collaborative process, as opposed to just
an ultimate accept/postpone/reject decision, would be very much appreciated.
> Cheers, Nick
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Gábor Lehel <glaebhoerl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Nick Cameron <lists at ncameron.org> wrote:
>>> https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/157 - Use `for` to introduce
>>> universal quantification - glaebhoerl
>>> Use `for` rather than `<...>` syntax for type-parametric items.
>>> Not much feedback, some discussion.
>>> Recommend close - we're not up for changing the syntax of Rust in
>>> such a fundamental way at this stage and want to keep with the
>>> curly-brace-language heritage.
>> (Thank you for sending these e-mails. I've responded to the substantive
>> aspects of this at the PR, as requested, but for the "meta" aspects
>> pertaining to process, I hope that replying to the e-mail is acceptable.)
>> If I may file a small protest: It feels wrong to me that the first time I
>> hear of this concern is in a recommendation to the meeting group to close
>> the PR because of it. (Which is not to mention that it's based on a basic
>> misunderstanding of the proposal.) Would it be possible to always raise a
>> particular concern in the comments on a PR before using it as justification
>> to close, or recommend closing, that PR?
>> (In general, I think it would be beneficial if the people who get to
>> decide the fate of PRs took a more active role in discussing and shaping
>> them, instead of staying aloof before handing down an opinion at some
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rust-dev