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

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/the-future-of-rcrrchive-was-re-1-9-backport/73707>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [October 26, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/the-future-of-rcrrchive-was-re-1-9-backport/73707 "2006-10-26T15:11:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Bil_K)\
**Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/the-future-of-rcrrchive-was-re-1-9-backport/73707/1 "2006-10-26T15:11:56Z")

</div>

Trans wrote:

> Reading:  
> [RubyConf 2006 Recap](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/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](http://www.travelistic.com/video/show/985)

beginning with bikeshed at 7:30.

Later,

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Bil_K)\
**Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/the-future-of-rcrrchive-was-re-1-9-backport/73707/2 "2006-10-26T15:50:00Z")

</div>

Hi –

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

> Trans wrote:
> 
> > Reading:  
> > [RubyConf 2006 Recap](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/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 🙂 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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Bil_K)\
**Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/the-future-of-rcrrchive-was-re-1-9-backport/73707/3 "2006-10-26T15:35:57Z")

</div>

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

> Trans wrote:
> 
> > Reading:  
> > [RubyConf 2006 Recap](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/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

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@Bil\_K](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Bil_K)\
**Post date:** [October 27, 2006, 5:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/the-future-of-rcrrchive-was-re-1-9-backport/73707/4 "2006-10-27T17:29:52Z")

</div>

On 10/26/06, removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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