Hey @blitzerr -- I was thinking we should make a WG related to the closure work you've been doing. And that we should schedule a meeting (maybe tomorrow, if that works for you? Maybe better next week?) to lay out a plan and get things going again, presuming you still want to be push this over the finish line.
Sure. That works. What time were you thinking for meeting ?
I do want to see it through release and keep working on it to get there
@blitzerr I didn't have a specific time in mind yet but I'm flexible
Can I list you as a "leader" =)
(As I wrote in a few other places, I think this would probably be the sort of WG where we aren't necessarily trying really hard to recruit a bunch of folks, though it might be cool if we could find 1 or 2 other people for you to work with, as it's often more fun on a team)
"leader" sounds fancy :joy:
@nikomatsakis I will create the relevant documents for the closure wg
@blitzerr thanks! Let me know what times would work for you re: a meeting. Maybe Monday at 13:00 East Coast time?
Also, let's come up with a better name
well, whatever the RFC was called
just not 'closure wg' ;)
@nikomatsakis I am on a different time zone roughly 12 hours. So maybe a before lunch time for you might work for me better. :grinning:
@blitzerr oh, nice, ok
@nikomatsakis Anytime between 8:30 AM - 11:30 AM your time works for me. I will be in this timezone for the next three weeks.
@blitzerr that's actually surprisingly hard for me next week for some reason. I could probably do Tuesday at 8:30-9:00 my time.
@blitzerr I can send you an invite, this same e-mail?
It might be like 8:45 basically :)
The email hasn't changed, just the timezone :grinning: Visiting family for a bit here.
I meant "same one you used for Zulip" but sure :)
So the RFC was RFC 2229 - "capture disjoint fields" . Maybe we should call the WG after the RFC?
wg-disjoint-field-capture gives some idea but I guess that people can't figure out what it is just by looking at the name of the working group. That makes me lean towards
wg-rfc-2229 but then again no one can figure out anything without looking at the RFC. brings us to two hard problems in CS - naming and cache invalidation :D
@blitzerr do you think you can make a PR to the compiler-team repo with the WG definition btw?
Let's do wg-rfc-2229 I guess for now
it's short and at least kind of obvious how to look it up
eh I don't know :) I can't decide
blitzerr do you think you can make a PR to the compiler-team repo with the WG definition btw?
@nikomatsakis I created one. https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/pull/27
Do you want to review or should I merge ?
One more thing :
for this wg, do we want to create a new stream or we want to keep using
Another thing is I also added you as the lead but can remove if you don't want to be one on paper and just want to be the grand mentor for the wg :smiley:
@blitzerr we'll make a new stream
let me review quickly
re: lead, I figured i'd be down as lead, but I am hoping we can maybe get a bit of collaboration happening, vs you having to do everything
@blitzerr if you're able to make those edits, I'll merge -- maybe we want to add a link to the paper document, too
@nikomatsakis I was just thinking about that.
I will link it in the README as the roadmap
Which big table are you talking here ?
Can you also edit the dreaded "big table" in the main README.md?
I guess you mean this ?
@nikomatsakis I addressed your suggestions and merged the changes.