What's the etiquette on resubmitting old RCRs? There's one in there
I'm very attached to 
martin
On 11/25/06, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
The other thing I will do in short order is make the old archive
available, on a read-only basis. I also have to do RSS feeds, as Tim
Bray mentioned.
Hi--
dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
Thanks for the report. I discovered that it was trying to assign a
number to your RCR by adding 1 to the previous number -- but since
yours was the first, it tried to query the number of nil and bombed.
to_i 
I'm sorry you're finding the new process unappealing. The basics of
it -- the starting again, the separate mailing lists, and so forth --
are all things that Matz asked me to implement. I'm really no more
qualified to discuss them than anyone else (other than Matz), and I'm
not going to make changes except at Matz's direction. So ultimately
you'll have to talk to him. I'd suggest giving it a(nother
though. I definitely want the whole thing to go smoothly and will try
to make sure that it does.
Thanks David. I understand that this is Matz' call. I suppose I could
have just written him. But I think everyone who participates in the RCR
process has a stake in how it works. It's not just that the process is
unappealling per se. It's frustating that the process is being
restarted from scratch for the 3rd time while the difference between
the restarts appears marginal at best. If you recall the last time this
transformation occured I heavy argued for an RCR mailing list and even
tried to start one. It had some limited success but it's the kind of
thing that just doesn't fly without official support. I believe what we
will get with this new process is just more of the same, becasue what
is really needed is a screening forum to eliminate lack-luster ideas
before they ever go to RCR and focus the good ones that do.
It's also very frustarting to see all ones contributions just
dissapear, as I've spent a fair amount of time submitting and
commenting on RCRs. (And that accounts for the strong tone of my post).
The other thing I will do in short order is make the old archive
available, on a read-only basis. I also have to do RSS feeds, as Tim
Bray mentioned.
That at least helps.
Thanks,
T.
dblack@wobblini.net writes:
Hi --
Hi David,
The new RCRchive has gone live, at http://www.rcrchive.net.
Out of curiosity, why a mailing list for every RCR?
That's what Matz asked for. I'll let him explain further.
David
I sort of understand. It sounds something like subscribing to a bug
in bugzilla.
Could you please add the global RCR lists to Gmane?
Steve
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Ross Bamford wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:13:53 -0000, <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Marc Heiler wrote:
"Comments are no longer entered on-site. Instead, there will
be a mailing list for each RCR."Could there be an option to differ between comments on it, and onto the
mailing list? For example I'd like to only comment on the RCR suggestion
in question, but not necessarily onto the mailing list as well. (I have
no problem if my opinion is then missed, I just want to sometimes
comment quickly on
something with my opinion/point of view).
Matz has asked that discussion and comments be offloaded onto the
mailing lists. The emailed comments will appear on the site, but
read-only.
David
--
David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] Ruby for Rails | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process" on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:44:05 +0900, "Martin DeMello" <martindemello@gmail.com> writes:
What's the etiquette on resubmitting old RCRs? There's one in there
I'm very attached to
It's OK to resubmit old RCRs, as long as they are not rejected, and
they are well considered.
matz.
Hi --
Hi--
Thanks for the report. I discovered that it was trying to assign a
number to your RCR by adding 1 to the previous number -- but since
yours was the first, it tried to query the number of nil and bombed.to_i
No, 0 doesn't have a "number" method either Anyway, I've fixed
it (I hope).
The other thing I will do in short order is make the old archive
available, on a read-only basis. I also have to do RSS feeds, as Tim
Bray mentioned.That at least helps.
I'm still setting up RSS but you can now see the old RCRs at:
David
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Trans wrote:
dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
--
David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] Ruby for Rails | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
Hi,
Thanks David. I understand that this is Matz' call. I suppose I could
have just written him. But I think everyone who participates in the RCR
process has a stake in how it works. It's not just that the process is
unappealling per se. It's frustating that the process is being
restarted from scratch for the 3rd time while the difference between
the restarts appears marginal at best. If you recall the last time this
transformation occured I heavy argued for an RCR mailing list and even
tried to start one. It had some limited success but it's the kind of
thing that just doesn't fly without official support. I believe what we
will get with this new process is just more of the same, becasue what
is really needed is a screening forum to eliminate lack-luster ideas
before they ever go to RCR and focus the good ones that do.
I am sorry for restarting it again. But I haven't felt it's worked
well for last two times. Most of them are pretty vague. I had to
read between the lines before accepting it. I have to left many just
because they are not concrete enough to distinguish good or bad.
This time, mailing list for each proposal could help discussion and
improving the proposals. In addition, I would eagerly reject
proposals that is not concrete enough this time. You may have to polish
your proposals again and again to be accepted. It is an effort, I
know. But it should be better than being left ignored.
matz.
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process" on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:10:13 +0900, "Trans" <transfire@gmail.com> writes:
Hi --
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Steven Lumos wrote:
Could you please add the global RCR lists to Gmane?
I'm not sure what you mean by the global lists.
David
--
David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] Ruby for Rails | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
Ah - thanks Last I saw of that one (rbtree in stdlib) it was still
pending consideration.
martin
On 11/25/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process" > on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:44:05 +0900, "Martin DeMello" <martindemello@gmail.com> writes:
>What's the etiquette on resubmitting old RCRs? There's one in there
>I'm very attached toIt's OK to resubmit old RCRs, as long as they are not rejected, and
they are well considered.
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hello,
It's OK to resubmit old RCRs, as long as they are not rejected, and
they are well considered.
And all the new RCRs need to contain a test or spec?
(Recall my rant at the end of,
http://www.travelistic.com/video/show/985
that garnered a round of applause.)
Regards,
--
Bil Kleb
http://kleb.tadalist.com/lists/public/427170
Hi --
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process" > on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:10:13 +0900, "Trans" <transfire@gmail.com> writes:
>Thanks David. I understand that this is Matz' call. I suppose I could
>have just written him. But I think everyone who participates in the RCR
>process has a stake in how it works. It's not just that the process is
>unappealling per se. It's frustating that the process is being
>restarted from scratch for the 3rd time while the difference between
>the restarts appears marginal at best. If you recall the last time this
>transformation occured I heavy argued for an RCR mailing list and even
>tried to start one. It had some limited success but it's the kind of
>thing that just doesn't fly without official support. I believe what we
>will get with this new process is just more of the same, becasue what
>is really needed is a screening forum to eliminate lack-luster ideas
>before they ever go to RCR and focus the good ones that do.I am sorry for restarting it again. But I haven't felt it's worked
well for last two times. Most of them are pretty vague. I had to
read between the lines before accepting it. I have to left many just
because they are not concrete enough to distinguish good or bad.This time, mailing list for each proposal could help discussion and
improving the proposals. In addition, I would eagerly reject
proposals that is not concrete enough this time. You may have to polish
your proposals again and again to be accepted. It is an effort, I
know. But it should be better than being left ignored.
I wanted to add that Matz did go through the previous RCRchive a
couple of weeks ago, and did some accepting and rejecting. So
definitely have a look there and see where things stand before
submitting new ones.
David
--
David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] Ruby for Rails | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
Hi --
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, Martin DeMello wrote:
On 11/25/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process" >> on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:44:05 +0900, "Martin DeMello" >> <martindemello@gmail.com> writes:
>What's the etiquette on resubmitting old RCRs? There's one in there
>I'm very attached toIt's OK to resubmit old RCRs, as long as they are not rejected, and
they are well considered.Ah - thanks
pending consideration.
I must make the old ones available for reading.... I'll try to do
that this morning.
David
--
David A. Black | dblack@wobblini.net
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] Ruby for Rails | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
Bil Kleb wrote:
And all the new RCRs need to contain a test or spec?
(Recall my rant at the end of,
http://www.travelistic.com/video/show/985
that garnered a round of applause.)
(Beginning at 33:30.)
Regards,
--
Bil Kleb
http://kleb.tadalist.com/lists/public/427170
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process" on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:20:17 +0900, "Martin DeMello" <martindemello@gmail.com> writes:
Ah - thanks
pending consideration.
The RCR covers the language in principle. A discussion for new
library addition should go to ruby-core.
matz.
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process" on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:20:08 +0900, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb@NASA.gov> writes:
And all the new RCRs need to contain a test or spec?
If it's possible. The proposal should be VERY specific AND concrete,
enough for me to implement without questioning, when it's accepted.
RCR can be improved through discussion on the list.
matz.