Mailing List Archive: Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings]

Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings]

Jun 20, 2022, 4:31 AM

Post #1 of 3 (144 views)

On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 14:52:23 -0400
"Ricardo Signes" <perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org> wrote:

> I have filed https://github.com/Perl/RFCs/pull/19
>
> What luck: RFC 19 is PR 19.

On that thought: Maybe from now onwards we say that any accepted RFC
gets allocated the number that its github PR was. That simplifies the
allocation process, since (we hope!) github ensures they're unique, and
means nobody has to do anything special to get one.

It does mean that people can't submit multiple RFCs in the same PR, but
I don't think that's a bad restriction to have ;)

--
Paul "LeoNerd" Evans

leonerd@leonerd.org.uk | https://metacpan.org/author/PEVANS
http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ | https://www.tindie.com/stores/leonerd/

Re: Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings] [ In reply to ]

neilb at neilb

Jun 20, 2022, 7:11 AM

Post #2 of 3 (144 views)

Permalink

> On that thought: Maybe from now onwards we say that any accepted RFC
> gets allocated the number that its github PR was

I think better to _not_ use the PR number. There will be PRs done against that repo for other reasons, and multiple PRs against the same RFC as well. This will result in a non-contiguous sequence of RFC numbers, and people possible what happened to RFC#23.

I think there should be a clear step in the process where the PSC say "yup, we think this should have a formal RFC", at which point the number is assigned and recorded in the tracker.

Neil

Re: Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings] [ In reply to ]

haarg at haarg

Jun 20, 2022, 8:05 AM

Post #3 of 3 (144 views)

Permalink

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 4:11 PM Neil Bowers <neilb@neilb.org> wrote:
>
> > On that thought: Maybe from now onwards we say that any accepted RFC
> > gets allocated the number that its github PR was
>
> I think better to _not_ use the PR number. There will be PRs done against that repo for other reasons, and multiple PRs against the same RFC as well. This will result in a non-contiguous sequence of RFC numbers, and people possible what happened to RFC#23.
>
> I think there should be a clear step in the process where the PSC say "yup, we think this should have a formal RFC", at which point the number is assigned and recorded in the tracker.

Using the PR number is awkward, but the current process also seems
rather confusing. It's not obvious when an RFC number would be given
or how to request one. Especially since there's already the Pre-RFC
step. If you've been given the go ahead to create the RFC, shouldn't a
number already be allocated?