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 to [email protected]
