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.
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.
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.
[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
I've proposed many methods in this ticket, but I don't think we need approval for all of them at once. I'd like the core developers to consider which ones should be moved forward and which ones should be followed up
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.
[Feature #18915] New error class: NotImplementedYetError or scope change for NotImplementedError
NotImplementedError has frequently been used for a purpose different from its intended role, namely to indicate that a method is expected to be implemented by a subclass. A new exception class with a name such as SubclassResponsibility (or AbstractMethodError) has been proposed for this use case.
Since both the naming and inheritance hierarchy were still under discussion, I raised this topic at Matsue RubyKaigi 12 on June 6, 2026.
SubclassResponsibility was considered a candidate for the class name.
At Matsue RubyKaigi 12, I confirmed support for having the new exception class inherit from ScriptError (not RuntimeError).
I have posted a summary of these discussions in an issue comment. Are there any remaining concerns that could block resolution?