Require language design proposals to either update the design documents
to
reflect the proposed changes, or add "TODO" comments to mark where those
changes
will be needed, with links back to the proposal. This is intended to
ensure that
the design documentation accurately informs readers about the current
language
design, without excessively burdening the proposal process.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This is being done because Projects v1 requires repo write access, a serious limitation for letting people use it. Projects v2 isn't a great option because it lacks event support. Labels are pretty stable in GitHub, so this switches to that.
Note this assumes we're fine renaming "decision: accepted" -> "proposal accepted", etc. There are two reasons for this:
1) To make it clear that this is a proposal-specific label, versus something like an issue for leads label.
2) Removing the colon because it was causing trouble with yaml syntax.
This also adds the "proposal draft" label, mainly to complete the taxonomy.
I was considering whether this should be a proposal itself, but it feels like maybe it's not necessary because it's a fairly low-key infrastructure change, and I'm not sure how much people were relying on the project board anyways.
I tested this in a personal repo, basically just poking at https://github.com/jonmeow/test/pull/2
Right now, the text is disallowing appeals to logic (which are persuasive methods, per the linked wikipedia article). Consensus seems to be that this is unintentional.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Recent experience indicates that the system of thumbs-up doesn't seem to
work consistently. Replace it with more broad encouragement to use PR
reactions to surface sentiment and a judgement call by the leads on when
a proposal is ready to merge.
An explicit goal here is that leads can make this judgement call
reflecting the nature of the proposal. Many of these are low-risk.
Either they are easily fixed-forward or minimally disruptive. This can
be because they are merely beginning to fill out a largely open area, or
because they are minor changes.
Also try to clarify that it is expected for the leads to sometimes miss
things or make mistakes, and encourage a revert or fix-forward mentality
rather than slowing down progress to reduce the rate of mistakes.
Expand the description of the structure of a proposal PR. Clarify that
the full PR is the proposal, not only the P-numbered document. Start a
design style guide and use it to describe which parts of a proposal
should not end up in the design.
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
- Add mentions of new "comment deadline" label.
- Link to review manager doc from evolution doc.
- Standardize evolution doc on "topic" instead of "forum topic" (use was mixed).
We're running into issues with md handlers that expect this kind of 4-space indent. It should be cross-compatible with GH, so switch, even though it feels a little churny.
Manual edits are to:
- .prettierrc.yaml:
- rename from .prettierrc
- add tabWidth (primary change)
- add trailingComma (fix vimPrettier skew)
- contribution_tools.md: Fix remarks about .prettierrc.yaml
- pre-commit-toc.js: indent, bullets
- pre-commit-proposal-list.py: indent of output
The rest is the result of `pre-commit run --all-files`
Unfortunately this'll probably depend on the change being propagated into PR branches, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see regressions for a bit. We'll also need to nudge people to update .vimrc's. Hopefully the pre-commit GH action helps catch issues.
This catches some common spelling errors, but is *not* an exhaustive spell-checker. The only false positive is "rouge" in Gemfile.lock, which is why I'm excluding that file.
True positives are in the change, and it does catch the "langauge" typo I keep making, which zygoloid fixed for me in a few spots. False negatives are:
- virmc
- Announcemented
- propsal
For comparison:
- cspell (https://www.npmjs.com/package/cspell) is too aggressive and has a small dictionary
- Caught the false negatives, but many false positives, including 'LLVM', 'roadmap', 'Carruth'
- https://github.com/lorenzwalthert/precommit has a spellcheck, but config looks ruby-specific
- Sentence case headers: https://developers.google.com/style/headings
- Remove parentheticals where possible: https://developers.google.com/style/parentheses
- Avoid latin abbreviations: https://developers.google.com/style/abbreviations#dont-use
Also some evolution-specific changes:
- Remove obsolete PDF references
- "decision is to accept the proposal" instead of "decision is to approve the change"
- Adjust review manager actions for accepted/declined/deferred decisions.
- Rephrase arbiter decisions, particularly to avoid 1-0 being considered a "majority".
- I think this was always intended, and does not reflect a substantive change.
The original header was exactly 80-columns which made every file format
with a line-start comment syntax reflow the text. Instead, pick
a canonical re-flowing that keeps it to just three lines. This also lets
the text refer to the project which seems more clear.
No practical or semantic change here, just getting consistent wording
and line breaks for regularity.
CONTRIBUTING.md replaces the mention of Google style guide (which isn't automated) with Prettier (which should do most of the hauling). The rest is the formatter.
Geoff RomerandRichard Smith
Jon Ross-Perkins
CharlieS1103andJon Ross-Perkins
Jon Meow
Matthew Riley
sidney13