The Future of RCRrchive (was Re: 1.9 Backport?)

Ruby
1

Trans wrote:

Reading:
RubyConf 2006 Recap

Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?

No.

RCRchive is to be remade. Most RCRs will be tossed
because new RCRs are required to explain the WHY
behind the proposed change and come replete with tests
and sample implementations. (Most current RCRs don’t
satisfy these criteria.)

See Matz’s keynote,

http://www.travelistic.com/video/show/985

beginning with bikeshed at 7:30.

Later,

2

Hi –

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Bil K. wrote:

Trans wrote:

Reading:
RubyConf 2006 Recap

Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?

No.

In fact, I’m hard at work on the new RCRchive. Stay tuned. It’s
going to operate somewhat differently, and will be focused on 1.9/2.0
changes.

RCRchive is to be remade. Most RCRs will be tossed
because new RCRs are required to explain the WHY
behind the proposed change and come replete with tests
and sample implementations. (Most current RCRs don’t
satisfy these criteria.)

Mind you, they’re supposed to :slight_smile: It’s always been a requirement that
proposals include Abstract, Problem, Analysis, and Implementation –
lots of “why”, etc. Most RCRs are done conscientiously and
diligently, but some are not very complete. Hopefully the new
logistics of the process will encourage more consistent compliance.

David

3

On Oct 26, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Bil K. wrote:

Trans wrote:

Reading:
RubyConf 2006 Recap
Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more?

No.

RCRchive is to be remade.

Sorry, that was sloppy explaining on my part. I’ve tried to clean it
up.

James Edward G. II

4

On 10/26/06, [email protected] [email protected] wrote:

No.

In fact, I’m hard at work on the new RCRchive. Stay tuned. It’s
going to operate somewhat differently, and will be focused on 1.9/2.0
changes.

Cool. Let’s just make sure that the old ones don’t get "tossed’, as
I’m sure there’ll be some historical value in them.

Thanks,
Keith