Mailing List Archive

please use the RFC process instead of "feature reqest" PRs
The PSC thinks that the RFC process looks to be heading in a useful
direction.

We are now asking people to stop using GitHub issues to submit "feature
requests". Instead, please write a mail to p5p summarising your idea. This
is the first step of the RFC process. Some ideas will be more appropriate
for an initial implementation, and others may be deemed inappropriate for
Perl. Otherwise you may be encouraged to submit a draft RFC. In the near
future we intend to steadily work through the existing backlog of open
feature requests and consider them for RFCs. The aim is to have no "feature
requests" remaining open, and to be able to promptly consider fresh ideas
sent to the list.

You don’t need to write a long e-mail - a few lines summarising your idea
and what problems it solves are just fine. A good example is the text of
https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/18641

perlrun says:
> A -p overrides a -n switch.

OK, but `-pnw` should warn:
"-np better written as -p"

just like it warns:
```
$ perl -awe 'print @F[1]'
Scalar value @F[1] better written as $F[1] at -e line 1.
```

We intend to consider this suggestion as our next test RFC, because the
suggestion is short and simple, and we think that it will generate
insightful discussion in an area that isn't often explored.

Nick, Neil and Rik.
Re: please use the RFC process instead of "feature reqest" PRs [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:44:44 +0000
Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:

> The PSC thinks that the RFC process looks to be heading in a useful
> direction.
>
> We are now asking people to stop using GitHub issues to submit
> "feature requests". Instead, please write a mail to p5p summarising
> your idea.

I think I have about five "feature request" issues currently open on
GitHub. Should I migrate them into being draft RFC emails here?

--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans

leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/
Re: please use the RFC process instead of "feature reqest" PRs [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:06:48AM +0100, Paul "LeoNerd" Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:44:44 +0000
> Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:
>
> > The PSC thinks that the RFC process looks to be heading in a useful
> > direction.
> >
> > We are now asking people to stop using GitHub issues to submit
> > "feature requests". Instead, please write a mail to p5p summarising
> > your idea.
>
> I think I have about five "feature request" issues currently open on
> GitHub. Should I migrate them into being draft RFC emails here?

Can we answer that after the PSC meeting on Friday? I suspect that a good
answer also needs us to answer

1) Direct access to the RFC repository?
2) How is the RFC process bootstrap going to continue once I'm no longer
on the PSC?

Yes, I'm on "PSC minutes" this week, hence the full minutes might not
arrive until Monday-ish. But I'd hope to reply properly this question by
early Saturday morning at the latest. (depends if I run away from the
computer the second that the PSC call completes)

Nicholas Clark
Re: please use the RFC process instead of "feature reqest" PRs [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 4:45 AM Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:

> The PSC thinks that the RFC process looks to be heading in a useful
> direction.
>
> We are now asking people to stop using GitHub issues to submit "feature
> requests". Instead, please write a mail to p5p summarising your idea.
>

I've previously done both at once (cross-linked), to initiate a discussion
while also providing a record in the issue tracker that can be easily
referenced. I fear that without the GitHub issue component, several would
now be only visible by digging through list archives (like many other such
past discussions). But I understand the desire of a more consistent RFC
process.

-Dan