Re: Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings]

> On that thought: Maybe from now onwards we say that any accepted RFC
> gets allocated the number that its github PR was

I think better to _not_ use the PR number. There will be PRs done against that repo for other reasons, and multiple PRs against the same RFC as well. This will result in a non-contiguous sequence of RFC numbers, and people possible what happened to RFC#23.

I think there should be a clear step in the process where the PSC say "yup, we think this should have a formal RFC", at which point the number is assigned and recorded in the tracker.

Neil

• pre-RFC: template strings by Ricardo Signes
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Ricardo Signes
• Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings] by Paul "LeoNerd" Evans
• Re: Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings] by Neil Bowers
• Re: Allocating RFC numbers: [was Re: pre-RFC: template strings] by Graham Knop
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by book
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Ricardo Signes
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by book
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by book
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Graham Knop
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Ricardo Signes
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Oodler 577 via perl5-porters
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by breno
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Ricardo Signes
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Oodler 577
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Walt Mankowski
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Walt Mankowski
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Oodler 577 via perl5-porters
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Mark Gardner
• Re: pre-RFC: template strings by Elvin Aslanov