On Wed, Dec 20, 2017, at 6:52 AM, Nicholas Nethercote via governance wrote: > The question I have is: should this be a Mozilla module? I can see > arguments in favour and against it being a module. > > - In favour: these people do reviews, and the modules list is the canonical > place for finding reviewers. > > - Against: these would be opt-in reviews. If a patch author is confident in > their Rust ability, and the "normal" reviewer is likewise confident, then > an extra review from a Rust Peer would not be necessary. > > We already have a "C++/Rust usage, tools, and style" module ( > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All#C.2B.2B.2FRust_usage.2C_tools.2C_and_style) > but that feels different to me. > > If we choose to make this a module, I'm not sure which section of > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All it would fall under. > > If we choose not to make this a module, I guess this list of people would > instead be put onto https://wiki.mozilla.org/Oxidation. > > What do people think?
If we expect our Rust expertise to grow quickly (I think we should) this list would not be necessary. Therefore I support to put it onto https://wiki.mozilla.org/Oxidation. Other the other hand, if they are going to collect and formalize best practices into a Rust style guide, they should probably be the "C++/Rust usage, tools, and style" module peers. My 2c. Kanru _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
