meta-issue: what href should one use to refer to RFC's?

[pnkfelix]

When I want to write a link to an RFC in a blog post (or in an issue in a repository of Rust code, or in the rust-lang/rust repo, etc), it is not clear if I should link to the issue number for the PR for that RFC, or to the RFC document itself.

The main problem here, to my mind, is that neither of the two options above is obviously correct, at least not until an RFC has reached the "complete" stage. Here is why:

• The PR for an RFC will often link to the document that lives in the original author's branch. That branch may be deleted once the RFC is accepted.
• The link to the RFC document itself is not stable, because the RFC moves from the author's branch into "active", and then from "active" to "complete".

(I am not entirely certain what the active/complete directory structure is buying us, to be honest.)

So: What href's should I be using right now? And also, should we perhaps change out conventions here to make one of the above choices "obviously right"? Note that either choice can work, given the appropriate conventions; for example, if we update the description in the PR to always point to a rendered "current' document (i.e. when it goes from "active" to "complete", then you also update the PR description), then the first bullet would be fine. Likewise, if we got rid of the "active"/"complete" directory structure, then the second bullet would be fine.

[pnkfelix]

Here is our thoughts on how to resolve this:

We will update RFC process to:

1. use one subdirectory instead of encoding the active/complete distinction in the subdirectory structure
2. Put the list of active RFCs into the README.md (near the top presumably)
3. use the original PR numbers for RFC numbers, instead of assigning them sequentially.

Discussion from weekly meeting: https://github.com/rust-lang/meeting-minutes/blob/master/weekly-meetings/2014-10-07.md#how-to-link-to-rfcs

[blaenk]

The link to the RFC document itself is not stable, because the RFC moves from the author's branch into "active", and then from "active" to "complete".

I've linked to the RFC document and used the RFC document number to refer to it. I hadn't considered this before.

I agree with #3. Naming the RFC after the PR is more consistent and predictable. After all, an RFC that wasn't approved was still a request for comments.

[nodakai]

What was the rule for updating an RFC after it's merged to rust-lang/rfc ? Will it be updated only for filling out the indexing data and such, or making typographical changes? My understanding is that the PR page only links to the forked RFC repo and doesn't necessarily guide us to the latest version of the RFC text.

[nodakai]

Can you also update https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs#the-rfc-life-cycle on removal of the "complete" folder? I'm new to the RFC process and got confused about it.