Actions
Misc #22088
openDevMeeting-2026-06-11
Misc #22088:
DevMeeting-2026-06-11
Status:
Open
Assignee:
-
Description
The next dev meeting¶
Date: 2026/06/11 13:00-17:00 (JST)
Log: TBD
- Dev meeting IS NOT a decision-making place. All decisions should be done at the bug tracker.
- Dev meeting is a place we can ask Matz, nobu, nurse and other developers directly.
- Matz is a very busy person. Take this opportunity to ask him. If you can not attend, other attendees can ask instead of you (if attendees can understand your issue).
- We will write a record of the discussion in the file or to each ticket in English.
- All activities are best-effort (keep in mind that most of us are volunteer developers).
- The date, time and place of the meeting are scheduled according to when/where we can reserve Matz's time.
- DO NOT discuss then on this ticket, please.
Call for agenda items¶
If you have a ticket that you want matz and committers to discuss, please post it into this ticket in the following format:
* [Ticket ref] Ticket title (your name)
* Comment (A summary of the ticket, why you put this ticket here, what point should be discussed, etc.)
Example:
* [Feature #14609] `Kernel#p` without args shows the receiver (ko1)
* I feel this feature is very useful and some people say :+1: so let discuss this feature.
- It is recommended to add a comment by 2026/06/08. We hold a preparatory meeting to create an agenda a few days before the dev-meeting.
- The format is strict. We'll use this script to automatically create an markdown-style agenda. We may ignore a comment that does not follow the format.
- Your comment is mandatory. We cannot read all discussion of the ticket in a limited time. We appreciate it if you could write a short summary and update from a previous discussion.
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) 7 days ago
- Related to Misc #14770: [META] DevelopersMeeting added
Updated by byroot (Jean Boussier) 7 days ago
- [Feature #22085]
String#to_fandKernel#Floatshouldn't issueFloat out of rangewarnings (byroot)- This is a good warning when Ruby is parsing source code.
- But it's not really actionable when parsing user input.
Updated by hasumikin (hitoshi hasumi) 7 days ago
- [Feature #22082] Introduce Bit Operations into String (hasumikin)
- I'd like you to discuss whether it's appropriate to add such functionality to the String class
- And if so, which methods should be added first
Updated by shugo (Shugo Maeda) 7 days ago
· Edited
- [Bug #22058] {Method,InstanceMethod}#super_method doesn't work correctly for refined method with refinements for method active in the caller's scope
- Is it ok to keep the 2.7+ behavior of
super? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/22058#note-13
- Is it ok to keep the 2.7+ behavior of
Updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze) 7 days ago
- [Feature #21998] Add {Method,UnboundMethod,Proc}#source_range (eregon)
- Are these tweaks OK? See https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21998#note-25
- PR is ready: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/16835
Updated by himura467 (Akito Shitara) 6 days ago
· Edited
- [Feature #19315] Lazy substrings in CRuby
- I created a prototype implementation: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/17045
- This is also a prerequisite for [Feature #22056].
- Proposed approach:
- Keep
RSTRING_PTR()behavior unchanged. This is essential for preserving compatibility with existing C extensions. - Introduce a new API (tentatively named
RSTRING_RAW_PTR()) that returns a raw pointer without guaranteeing null termination and without triggering unsharing.- Zero-copy requires caller migration, but I consider compatibility the higher priority.
- Keep
- Would like you to discuss:
- Whether the no-GVL handling in
RSTRING_PTR()is warranted (see https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19315#note-18) - How
RSTRING_PTR()should handle null termination: permanently unshare, or allocate a read-only copy instead (see https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19315#note-23), with a possible restriction to frozen/STR_TMPLOCKstrings only (see https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/19315#note-27) - Whether
RSTRING_RAW_PTR()is an appropriate name for the new API
- Whether the no-GVL handling in
Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 3 days ago
- [Feature #22093] Introduce
Process::IDfor process IDs returned byProcess.spawnandfork-
Add integer-like class
Process::IDwhich wraps a process ID. -
Open questions
- Should
Process::IDincludeComparable, or only define<=>? - Should Process::ID#wait accept the same integer flags as existing wait APIs, provide keyword arguments, or support both?
- Should
Process::ID#detachsimply be equivalent toProcess.detach(self)? - Are there other process-related APIs that should return or preserve
Process::ID?
- Should
-
Updated by jhawthorn (John Hawthorn) about 4 hours ago
· Edited
- [Feature #22067] New
RUBY_TYPED_THREAD_SAFE_FREEbit to declare thread safedfreefunctions (jhawthorn, luke-gru)- Proposes an opt-in TypedData flag declaring a
dfree()function thread-safe - Allows GC implementations to free TypedData in parallel / concurrently with Ruby code or with Ractor-local GC
- Implies
RUBY_TYPED_FREE_IMMEDIATELY(more strict for extension authors, more flexible for GC) - Alternate name:
RUBY_TYPED_FREE_THREAD_SAFE. Shares prefix withRUBY_TYPED_FREE_IMMEDIATELY, but reads more awkwardly. - OK to add flag?
- Proposes an opt-in TypedData flag declaring a
Actions