Actions
Misc #19357
closedDevMeeting-2023-02-09
Status:
Closed
Assignee:
-
Description
The next dev meeting¶
Date: 2023/02/09 13:00-17:00 (JST)
Log: https://github.com/ruby/dev-meeting-log/blob/master/2023/DevMeeting-2023-02-09.md
- Dev meeting IS NOT a decision-making place. All decisions should be done at the bug tracker.
- Dev meeting is a place we can ask Matz, nobu, nurse and other developers directly.
- Matz is a very busy person. Take this opportunity to ask him. If you can not attend, other attendees can ask instead of you (if attendees can understand your issue).
- We will write a record of the discussion in the file or to each ticket in English.
- All activities are best-effort (keep in mind that most of us are volunteer developers).
- The date, time and place of the meeting are scheduled according to when/where we can reserve Matz's time.
- DO NOT discuss then on this ticket, please.
Call for agenda items¶
If you have a ticket that you want matz and committers to discuss, please post it into this ticket in the following format:
* [Ticket ref] Ticket title (your name)
* Comment (A summary of the ticket, why you put this ticket here, what point should be discussed, etc.)
Example:
* [Feature #14609] `Kernel#p` without args shows the receiver (ko1)
* I feel this feature is very useful and some people say :+1: so let discuss this feature.
- It is recommended to add a comment by 2023/02/06. We hold a preparatory meeting to create an agenda a few days before the dev-meeting.
- The format is strict. We'll use this script to automatically create an markdown-style agenda. We may ignore a comment that does not follow the format.
- Your comment is mandatory. We cannot read all discussion of the ticket in a limited time. We appreciate it if you could write a short summary and update from a previous discussion.
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) almost 2 years ago
- Related to Misc #14770: [META] DevelopersMeeting added
Updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) almost 2 years ago
- [Feature #19351] Promote bundled gems at Ruby 3.3
- How about the list of first proposal?
- Do you have opinion for "Additional Works"?
Updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev) almost 2 years ago
Sorry for a long list, I'll try to give the informative description to each
- [Feature #18368] Range#step semantics for non-Numeric ranges (zverok)
- It seems that nobody is in principle against it, Matz's doubts are addressed with detailed explanations.
- [Feature #19061] Proposal: make a concept of "consuming enumerator" explicit (zverok)
- Questions are addressed, is it possible to move forward with it?
- [Feature #19272] Hash#merge: smarter protocol depending on passed block arity (zverok)
- A novel proposal to use block arity analysis for more friendly API, allowing
hash1.merge(hash2, &:+)
without losing backward compatibility
- A novel proposal to use block arity analysis for more friendly API, allowing
- [Misc #19304] Kernel vs Object documentation (zverok)
- The question is probably only documentation-related, but I believe it is important to the general understanding of Ruby and would like to hear the core team consensus
- [Feature #19324]
Enumerator.product
=>Enumerable#product
(zverok)- For consistency with other methods "promoted" from Array
- The question of necessity of "standalone" method concept was raised, too
Updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) almost 2 years ago
- [Bug #11230] Should rb_struct_s_members() be public API? (jeremyevans0)
- This C function was previous decided to be removed from the public API after Ruby 3.2.
- The function is still exported as it is needed by
marshal.c
. - One stated reason for removal is that
rb_struct_s_members
returns a hidden Array.rb_struct_members
appears to return the same Array. - Should we consider removing
rb_struct_members
from the public API as well?
- [Feature #19347] Add Dir.fchdir (jeremyevans0)
- This was discussed last developer meeting, with 4 possible approaches.
- I've given comments for each approach. Can we decide on an approach?
- [Feature #19388] Deprecate SecurityError (jeremyevans0)
- SecurityError was used historically for
$SAFE
violations. It hasn't been used since Ruby 3.0. - I think we should deprecate SecurityError in Ruby 3.3 and remove it Ruby 3.4. Is this OK?
- SecurityError was used historically for
Updated by k0kubun (Takashi Kokubun) over 1 year ago
- [Feature #19420] Simplify MJIT implementation (k0kubun)
- Is it okay to move forward with that idea? I'd like to get early feedback before going too far with it.
Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) over 1 year ago
- [Feature #10343] Postfix notations for
when
andelse
insidecase
statement (sawa)- Allow
foo when condition
within case-statements. - Has not received feedback for eight years.
- Allow
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) over 1 year ago
- Status changed from Open to Closed
Actions
Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0