FCPs should be obtained from http://rusty-dash.com/fcp

[gnzlbg]

Currently it seems that FCPs announcements are only obtained from the RFC repo, but this is woefully incomplete, since a lot of them are in other repos that are part of the rust-lang or (like rust-lang/rust).

The correct place to obtain information and track FCPs is http://rusty-dash.com/fcp .

[nasa42]

It seems like http://rusty-dash.com/fcp lists RFCs that would go to FCP after team reaches a consensus, and not RFCs that are already in FCP. In TWiR, we list RFCs that are already in FCP.
I also looked at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/labels/final-comment-period (rust repo) and all issues here are tracking-issue for already accepted RFCs.
So, I think it currently makes sense to stick to https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/labels/final-comment-period (rfc repo).

[gnzlbg]

@nasa42 I just posted this because the lasts TWiR all missed the final comment period on cfg_target_feature (the current one also misses it). Still, it is listed on rusty-dash (under T-lang), the comments clearly shows that there is an FCP going on to merge it without an RFC, and yet, the issue is not labeled with FCP.

It seems like http://rusty-dash.com/fcp lists RFCs

It doesn't just list RFCs, it also lists "issues" that are merged without an RFC process. I haven't seen an FCP for deciding to move an issue into an RFC yet. Do you have any examples of this happening?

that would go to FCP after team reaches a consensus,

No, after FCPs these things are merged, e.g., in the case of cfg_target_feature the unstable feature would be stabilized. No RFC required IIUC how the process works.

and not RFCs that are already in FCP

I think this is also incorrect. It also lists RFCs that are already in FCP. For example, the RFC 1685 is under final comment period in the rfc repo and listed in rusty-dash as such. If its missing any that's a bug.

So, I think it currently makes sense to stick to https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/labels/final-comment-period (rfc repo).

I think it clearly makes sense to switch to rusty-dash since it list all the FCPs, not only the ones from the RFC repo. And if FCPs for stabilizing language features are slipping through the cracks doing nothing does not seem like a correct solution.

[nasa42]

It would probably be too much information to include if TWiR also listed FCPs from other rust-lang org repositories.

If anyone is interested, it is easy to find the list at this page.

[nasa42]

I've changed my stance on this, and starting this week, FCPs from rust-lang/rust repo are also included.