Thanks, Jean, great to see progress on this. --Richard On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 3:41 AM Jean Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > The RPC agrees and has added this experiment to its GitHub roadmap: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=rpc_github_roadmap > > We plan to start accepting documents for this in a few weeks. We will be > asking authors if they want to participate via our intake form when > their documents enter the queue. > > Best regards, > Jean > > On 10/7/25 2:32 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > That should be "+1". > > > > On 07.10.2025 21:21, Eliot Lear wrote: > >> > >> =1 > >> > >> On 07.10.2025 20:58, Richard Barnes wrote: > >>> It seems like we're deep enough in "it MIGHT be a problem" territory > >>> here that we should just run the experiment, see if there's a > >>> problem, and if there is, fix it. > >>> > >>> --Richard > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 8:36 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 11:22 AM Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Eric, > >>> > >>> On 07.10.2025 20:09, Eric Rescorla wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm struggling to understand the concern here, given that the > >>>> current approved email flow involves the editors sending > >>>> text in OLD/NEW format, which is essentially what GitHub > >>>> suggestions are. There's no ambiguity about the desired > >>>> new state and if they are committed it's trivial to see what > >>>> changed. > >>> > >>> > >>> That's not ENTIRELY the case (so to speak). Sometimes there > >>> are some global changes with cassification, spelling and > >>> such, requiring rebasing, etc. > >>> > >>> Are you talking about cases in which the RPC made some change > >>> that the author wants reversed globally? Yes, I agree that in that > >>> case you wouldn't use suggestions. But you also wouldn't attach > >>> a PR update, you would tell the RPC in text to reverse it. > >>> > >>> I don't see why this would require a rebase, though. > >>> > >>> I'm *fully confident* the RPC is up to managing that, btw, in > >>> terms of finding the best work flow (like maybe ordering PR > >>> processing). And I don't want to make a mountain out of a > >>> mole hill, but there will probably be times when > >>> ```suggestion doesn't QUITE cut it, and we shouldn't rely on > >>> it as the only means for changes. > >>> > >>> Nor am I suggesting that. > >>> > >>> -Ekr > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Eliot > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] > >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rfc-interest mailing list [email protected] > >> To unsubscribe send an email [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
