[ruby-core:50750] Re: Towards a better process for changing Ruby

Endoh-san,

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Yusuke Endoh <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello Magnus,
>
> "Implemented" is not the final goal.  It continues:
>
> 7. Previews and RCs are released.
> 8. Someone reports a problem of some features.
> 9. matz (or a release manager) may reconsider and decide to keep,
> change or cancel the features.
> 10. Official release. The spec is fixed!
>
>> 1. More time between a change is proposed and accepted (let's say, 7 days).
>
> I don't get your point.  Usually, the time between "proposed" and "accepted"
> is (too) long because matz does not reply so soon.
> Did you mean "accepted and implemented"?  It makes sense to me, but as I said
> above, "implemented" is not "fixed."

Oops, it seems I wasn't so clear. By "proposed" I meant that matz
proposed the change (i.e. he made a decision).

And I realize now that by "accepted" I rather mean "considered a part
of Ruby, the language".

I understand (and agree) that it's important to implement changes to
see their full effect, but it's unclear when changes become an
official part of the language. There's a lot of activity on ruby-core
and redmine and it's difficult follow every thread/issue. I feel like
some changes silently become official (without feedback from other
implementers) because it was committed to MRI and "forgotten".

So actually, the timeframe isn't so important I think. It's more
important that we have one big list of "changes that matz want (and
maybe already are in MRI), but hasn't been fully specified/tested".

> Anyway, you want something like a public comment period, don't you?
> Then, it is "now" for 2.0.0.
>
> I say again.  Please try 2.0.0-preview and give us your feedback!
>
> We cannot promise to reflect all your feedback to the official release, but
> we will be happy to consider.  In fact, some feedback, e.g. #7300 and #7286,
> triggered to revert some changes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Yusuke Endoh <[e-mail]>
>