B
Bil Kleb
Yukihiro said:
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,
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,
B
Bil Kleb
Bil said:
(Beginning at 33:30.)
Regards,
Y
Yukihiro Matsumoto
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process"
|Ah - thanks
Last I saw of that one (rbtree in stdlib) it was still
|pending consideration.
The RCR covers the language in principle. A discussion for new
library addition should go to ruby-core.
matz.
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process"
|Ah - thanks
Last I saw of that one (rbtree in stdlib) it was still|pending consideration.
The RCR covers the language in principle. A discussion for new
library addition should go to ruby-core.
matz.
Y
Yukihiro Matsumoto
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process"
|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.
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process"
|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.
T
Trans
Hi--
to_i ;-)
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).
That at least helps.
Thanks,
T.
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).
That at least helps.
Thanks,
T.
D
dblack
Hi --
No, 0 doesn't have a "number" method either Anyway, I've fixed
it (I hope).
I'm still setting up RSS but you can now see the old RCRs at:
http://oldrcrs.rubypal.com
David
--
David A. Black | (e-mail address removed)
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
No, 0 doesn't have a "number" method either
Anyway, I've fixedit (I hope).
I'm still setting up RSS but you can now see the old RCRs at:
http://oldrcrs.rubypal.com
David
--
David A. Black | (e-mail address removed)
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
Y
Yukihiro Matsumoto
Hi,
In message "Re: New RCRchive, including new process"
|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"
|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.
D
dblack
Hi --
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 | (e-mail address removed)
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
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 | (e-mail address removed)
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
D
dblack
Hi --
I'm not sure what you mean by the global lists.
David
--
David A. Black | (e-mail address removed)
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
I'm not sure what you mean by the global lists.
David
--
David A. Black | (e-mail address removed)
Author of "Ruby for Rails" [1] | Ruby/Rails training & consultancy [3]
DABlog (DAB's Weblog) [2] | Co-director, Ruby Central, Inc. [4]
[1] http://www.manning.com/black | [3] http://www.rubypowerandlight.com
[2] http://dablog.rubypal.com | [4] http://www.rubycentral.org
M
Michal Suchanek
How do I sign up?Hi everyone --
The new RCRchive has gone live, at http://www.rcrchive.net.
Please note the following important points:
* We're starting again, and it's for Ruby 1.9/2.0 requests only.
* Yes, I know it's not a design masterpiece
good designer and want to volunteer to help, let me know.
* Comments are no longer entered on-site. Instead, there will
be a mailing list for each RCR.
* Once you've signed up, you can:
- submit RCRs
- vote on RCRs
- subscribe to one or more of the comment/discussion mailing
lists
More help is available at the site, and I'm happy to field questions
and problem reports (subject to holiday schedule
I filled the form and got to a page that said I will receive an email
notification. How many hours should I wait for it?
Thanks
Michal