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

Add issue triage guidelines #463

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jonas-schievink
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I personally don't see much value in directing people to rust-lang/rfcs, beyond perhaps making people feel like their issue is tracked "somewhere" -- I don't feel like either T-lang or T-libs actively reads either venue. Nor do they do so on internals, but there is more community feedback there generally speaking and we avoid unbounded queues due to its nature as a forum more than just an accumulation of issues.

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

Otherwise though this seems great!

cc @rust-lang/lang @rust-lang/libs given that policies here affect your queues in some sense, I would like to know if you feel rust-lang/rfcs is worthwhile as a long-term staging ground, of course other thoughts on the proposal here are welcome.

@jonas-schievink
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah, I think I agree. I just tried to the "Transfer issue" workflow on rust-lang/rfcs#3006, and it's quite a bit more work than selecting a saved reply and hitting "Close with comment", so that isn't ideal either.

@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member

Yes, please don't direct people directly to the RFCs repo. Lang folks do read RFCs there, but we'd prefer to see most language changes go through the project process first.

Given that libs is currently adopting a similar process, and thus compiler/lang/libs will all use the same process, it'd be nice to have a single description of that process that we can link to, along with the entry points for that process.

Issues in [`rust-lang/rust`] should be closed in the following cases:

* **Language Feature Requests** that might require non-trivial design effort
should closed in favor of the [RFC process] or a discussion on [IRLO].
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps we should direct folks to https://lang-team.rust-lang.org/proposing_a_project.html instead

should closed in favor of the [RFC process] or a discussion on [IRLO].
* **Library Feature Requests** that encompass more than just a small addition
to the standard library should likewise be closed in favor of the
[RFC process] or discussion on [IRLO].
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It seems like @KodrAus (in rust-lang/rfcs#2979) was suggesting that libs team might adpt a lighterweight process here too...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeh, I think what we've all been working out that would apply to Libs too would see these larger additions run through a staged process that doesn't necessarily require an RFC up-front.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants