Co-authored by: chandlerc
- Based on [PR 22](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/83)
- [Idea topic](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/proposal-for-an-incomplete-rough-high-level-overview-ready-for-early-feedback/52)
- [RFC](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/rfc-an-incomplete-early-and-in-progress-overview-of-the-language-design/73)
- [Decision announcement](https://forums.carbon-lang.dev/t/accepted-an-incomplete-early-and-in-progress-overview-of-the-language-design/110)
This proposal should be considered a starting point of the language design. It's not intended to be final; language details may change. This is intended to offer a reasonable starting point for:
- Example code.
- Conceptualizing Carbon at a high level.
- Reasonable, but not necessarily final, approaches to features in README.md.
- If any idea is obviously bad, we can clean it up here.
This proposal is not intended to achieve:
- A whole language design.
- This is way too much work for a single proposal; this is a skeletal framework only.
- As we work on feature-specific designs, we may decide to use other approaches. That's fine: we only need somewhere to start.
- The summaries in README.md may be expected to change over time.
- Feature-specific files aren't intended to be well-written or comprehensive. They are a quick jot of prior thoughts.
- We want to avoid getting stuck on language details that we should consider
more carefully regardless. If you're passionate about a feature, please feel
free to start a new proposal for it.
- Each and every aspect of the suggested overview should be subject to careful
examination and justification before it becomes a settled plan of record.
Chandler started this with https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/22. I've taken it over with the following changes:
- More of a directory hierarchy.
- Trying to thin out the main file (now README.md) to lighter summaries of features.
- Details/rationale/alternatives should be in feature-specific files.
- Draft files are linked as references where added.
For an example of how we may proceed with feature-specific designs, see https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/80. In this structure:
- docs/design/README.md mentions interoperability, with a light overview.
- The light overview is not yet in https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/80.
- docs/design/interoperability/README.md goes into more depth on interoperability, covering key points of the approach.
- Individual files in docs/design/interoperability/* go into more depth on interoperability.
Simple designs may not have a subdirectory. All current feature-specific designs do not -- they may be moved later.
- 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.
python3.6 causes weird venv issues for at least josh11b -- not sure why.
```
$ ls -l /usr/bin/python3.6
-rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4538776 Jan 2 2019 /usr/bin/python3.6*
$ virtualenv -p python3.6 venv
RuntimeError: failed to find interpreter for Builtin discover of python_spec='python3.6'
```
* Proposal for an explicit GitHub workflow.
This suggests a GitHub workflow that uses pull requests, produces linear
history, and both incentivizes and encourages small, incremental changes
(both at the pull request and commit granularity). It tries to follow
general best practices around software engineering at scale and GitHub
workflows. It also tries to ensure the workflow is very well supported
by tooling and automation built into GitHub.
Of note, this proposal should match precisely the current enforced flow
on our GitHub repositories. But we need to actually decide we like this,
write up the rationale behind it, and document what we're doing.
I've added an abbreviated version of the proposal as a documentation
update to the contributing file. Happy to restructure or find a better
home for this. I've tried to focus on the parts that contributors
actually would need to care about as opposed to the things that are
simply and fully enforced mechanically.
My hope after this is to suggest more detailed code review guidelines.
* Addressing review comments.
Notably, I really was giving too much weight to multi-commit PRs which
shouldn't be the common or default. I've tried to restructure everything
to make it much more clear what is going on here.
* Minor tweaks
* Fix typo in CONTRIBUTING.md
Co-authored-by: josh11b <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
* Extract workflow description and remove redundancies.
* remove tracking issue template field
* Update proposals/p0029.md with reviewer suggsetion.
Co-authored-by: Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
* Continue to address review feedback.
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: austern <austern@google.com>
* Incorporate code review feedback and begin moving toward "trunk" based terminology
* Tweak the wording and make it a bit more consistent.
* Update docs/project/pull_request_workflow.md
Co-authored-by: Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
* Address more review comments.
* Correct the rationale.
* Tweak wording based on discussion in review.
* Improve the rationale around the default branch to avoid overstating or
misstatig things.
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
* Clean up formatting and address a couple of comments on grammar from review.
* Update docs/project/pull_request_workflow.md
Co-authored-by: austern <austern@google.com>
* Add to proposal list.
Co-authored-by: josh11b <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: austern <austern@google.com>
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
This sentence feels like a hold-over from the Google Doc, which still feels useful in that context. Especially because it's so easy to copy/share Docs outside the shared drive. However, for things going to GitHub, it seems like we should either have it everywhere or nowhere, and it doesn't feel helpful enough to have in every file.
My feeling would be different about a notice on the website -- that could be done centrally for all pages, and may be more useful. However, I haven't bothered there because we restrict access to docs, and I think the login flow should make it clearer that a lack of re-sharing is the intent.
* Proposal timeline proposal
As this proposal was started and approved before the PR-based process was in place, this PR will be used to put the old proposal Doc that was approved into Markdown.
* Update p00xx.md
* Rename the proposal file to match the PR
Also update the reference inside the file.
* Update proposals/p0074.md
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
* Update proposals/p0074.md
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Added here:
- .pre-commit-config.yaml
- docs/project/contribution_tools.md
- src/scripts/pre-commit-toc.js
- CONTRIBUTING.md
- proposals/* (just to switch TOC formats)
The rest consists of auto-generated fixes.
The switch from doctoc to markdown-toc is because doctoc wants to put a TOC in every file, whereas markdown-toc only does it if you have an insertion point.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
- 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.
* First draft of a README for the principles/ directory.
* More closely mirror the relevant section from the goals doc.
* Reword bit about excluding using chandlerc@'s suggested text.
* Link to goals doc.
* Update docs/project/principles/README.md
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Chandler Carruth
Sidney HummertandJon Meow
George Kulakowski
Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
