On 12 April 2013 09:40, Charles Oliver Nutter <headius / headius.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Marc-Andre Lafortune
> <ruby-core-mailing-list / marc-andre.ca> wrote:
>> My thought is that all feature requests for trunk should be considered
>> Common Ruby.
>>
>> I'm not sure I see the point of having two separate "projects". What would a
>> "bug" in Common Ruby mean?
>
> Do you agree that Ruby and MRI are separate things? If so, we need to
> avoid filing bugs or features against MRI that would lead to changes
> in other Rubies.
>
> I gave examples of what would *not* be ComnonRuby in my repliy to
> naruse. If any implementation would need to implement said feature to
> be "compatible", it should be in ComnonRuby. If it can be reasonably
> defined as an MRI-specific change (env vars, RubyVM methods, build
> changes, cross-platform behavioral differences, ...) it would be fine
> to call a ruby-trunk issue.
>
> I recognize there's a grey area here. I also recognize that feature
> requests filed against ruby-trunk do not encapsulate similar visible
> feature changes that happen in other Redmine projects. We need one
> place where we can look up implenentation-impacting changes.
>
>> Can't you filter on the subject of the message for "Feature"?
>>
>> If so, I would simply merge Common Ruby into trunk
>
> I think there's a very clear line between MRI features and "Ruby"
> features. I need to know the latter in order to make JRuby as
> compatible as possible. I don't really care about the former.

I do agree it would be useful to have the distinction.

> - Charlie
>