Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Book should say what it is about #3767

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

hkBst
Copy link
Member

@hkBst hkBst commented Jan 31, 2025

This is my best guess at what this book is, but I could be wrong, since this does not seem to be stated anywhere...

@ehuss ehuss added the not-rfc For PRs that fix things like spelling mistakes, wrong file names, etc. label Feb 1, 2025
Comment on lines +5 to 9
This book is a collection of all RFCs that have been accepted.

The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent
and controlled path for changes to Rust (such as new features) so that all
stakeholders can be confident about the direction of the project.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Probably the bit being added would make more sense as the second paragraph, after the nature of an RFC has been introduced.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, I don't think that is right. The very first thing this book should say is what it is about at the highest level possible. Then the details of that thing can be explained later.

Also to be able to understand """The "RFC" process ... the direction of the project.""" it helps greatly if you already know what this book is about.

@hkBst
Copy link
Member Author

hkBst commented Mar 14, 2025

I see there are some confused emojis, so I will try to explain a bit more. Currently I am unsure whether this book is a collection of RFCs that:

  • have merely been written
  • have also had some review for clarity and consistency
  • have also had some review for desirability of implementation
  • have also been implemented (I'm pretty sure it's not this one, but it's not stated anywhere AFAIK)
  • a combination of all previous categories

Does the book explain this somewhere and I missed it? Which of these options is correct?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
not-rfc For PRs that fix things like spelling mistakes, wrong file names, etc.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants