From: Matt Armstrong Date: 2002-01-13T08:40:31+09:00 Subject: Re: RCRCR David Alan Black writes: > Hello -- > > Yes, a Ruby Change Request Change Request. > > It seems to me that RCRs fall into several categories, and that those > categories are different enough from each other that it would be worth > turning them into different things. The RCR label, in my view, is > flattening things out to much; there's a big difference, say, between > wanting #lstrip added to String and wanting method overloading based > on number of arguments. What is the practical problem with the current system? Is the RCR list getting too large? Do you want to be able to sort/search based on the new criteria? Do you want to prioritize RCRs with these new categories? I'm not necessarily against further categorization, but the benefit is not obvious to me. > Ruby Alteration Request > Ruby Enhancement Request > Ruby Optimization Request I think that if anything, these should just be a "category" field in a particular RCR. I.e. a given RCR can be an alteration, enhancement, optimization, etc. The problem with ditching RCR in favor of more top level categories is that joe user who files his idea into the system may not even know if his idea is an enhancement or an alteration, etc. -- matt