Addressing unimplemented evolution proposals

That thread didn’t get a ton of traction, but I wouldn’t call it dead. I think it may still be possible to come to a consensus.

Ben, whatever happened with this Core team guidance from September 2020? There are still over a dozen unimplemented proposals, half of which are growing quite old. When will the one year cutoff take place for proposals that have not been implemented, or has the guidance changed?

One thought I had was that any proposals that are over a year old can be “returned for revision” as opposed to rejected. Is anyone going to comment on this? The core team created this discussion and seemingly abandoned it without a word.

2 Likes

@benrimmington @tomerd Whats the status on the 5 Accepted Evolution proposals that are a year + un-implemented? I ask because I feel it’s good to keep drawing attention to these proposals to give them renewed vigor and maybe help them get implemented or not:

SE: 0220 count(where:) = 3 years 8 months
SE: 0246 Generic Math(s) Functions = 3 years
SE: 0274 Concise magic file names = 2 years 1 month
SE: 0283 Tuples Conform to Equatable , Comparable , and Hashable = 1 year 11 months
SE: Package Editor Commands = 1 year 1 month

What are their statuses, frozen? Any implementation goal time? Just curious! :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Evolution is mainly about reviewing language proposals rather than discussing implementations, so this is not really the right place to be asking about updates on implementation time frames. Please don’t use this thread as a general place to ping for fresh updates on implementation of expired proposals. The guidance remains that if implementations of expired proposals become available these proposals would need to be re-run (though that ought to be a fairly lightweight process).

1 Like

The core team decided to reject the expired proposals, but that hasn't happened yet.

(SE-0274 might be withdrawn, because it was superseded by SE-0285.)

Right. The main problem here is representing these on the dashboard/in the proposal doc as “Rejected” kind of implies that these proposals were turned down as not a good idea, but in most (though not all) cases, the acceptance holds in principal but they couldn’t actually land for some unexpected reason, and since too much time has passed, they should be re-evaluated if those blockages are cleared.

But this is most a question of “how should we represent their status on the dashboard” rather than “when are they coming”. How long it’s been and what’s going on about fixing the blockers isn’t relevant to that.

2 Likes

Sorry! Had no idea they had all been rejected. Good to know.

Maybe label them as expired?

6 Likes

@Ben_Cohen @benrimmington I mean, that's gotta be the answer right? A new "expired" category would eliminate confusion.

From the dashboard/status side of things, there's nothing really stopping us from adding a new state or presentation for these proposals, other than consensus that it should it exist and what we should call it.

1 Like

I think this is the very discussion which is relevant:

Quoting:

tkremenek commented on 27 Oct 2021

We will require new proposals for "expired" proposals, but we will represent them by "rejected" instead of "expired", with a commentary added from the core team saying the proposal was expired.

3 Likes

Guess that’s the answer! When is that going to happen?