[43] draft update

Author: jessesquires

_drafts/2016-10-20-issue-43.md

@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ Remember [SE-0025](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposal
 
 ### Starter tasks
 
+- [SR-2960](https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-2960): Better Document `utils/run-test`. Neither `build-script -h` nor `docs/Testing.rst` mention the existence of `utils/run-test`, but they should. This is the best way to run a subset of the tests, and a huge quality-of-life improvement for working on the compiler or standard library.
+- [SR-2948](https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-2948): Discarding a closure from a `@discardableResult` function results in a compile error. A function marked with `@discardableResult` should not be a compiler error if its returning closure is not used.
+
 {% include task_remind.html %}
 
 ### Community
@@ -37,10 +40,6 @@ Doug Coleman opened a [pull request](https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/5048) t
 
 From this week's [LLVM weekly](http://llvmweekly.org/issue/146), a [lengthy proposal](https://reviews.llvm.org/rL284077) on moving LLVM to GitHub was added. As mentioned before, having all of these projects on GitHub could be beneficial to Swift contributors, and possibly lower the barrier to getting involved with LLVM.
 
-### Accepted proposals
-
-> TODO
-
 ### Proposals in review
 
 [SE-0144](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0144-allow-single-dollar-sign-as-valid-identifier.md): *Allow Single Dollar Sign as a Valid Identifier* by Ankur Patel is [under review](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution-announce/2016-October/000291.html). As discussed [last issue](/issue-42/), Ankur is the author of [Dollar.swift](https://github.com/ankurp/Dollar) which would break after a [recent fix](https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/3901) in the compiler.
@@ -59,6 +58,8 @@ class $ {}
 
 ### Mailing lists
 
+Ankit Aggarwal [asked for feedback](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20161010/027945.html) on a draft proposal for version pinning in SwiftPM.
+
 The other week, David Hart [started a discussion](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20161003/027632.html) about `private` and `fileprivate` from [SE-0025](https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md): *Scoped Access Level*, asking if "this ship has sailed" or not. As expected, the email elicited many responses from the community. Like David and Russ, I agree that this proposal was a mistake — in practice, using `fileprivate` feels cumbersome and too complex. I find extremely little value in `private`. In particular, these new access levels make type extensions more burdensome to implement since an `extension` cannot access `private` members. If the community is willing to put forth a detailed proposal with significant evidence to support that reverting SE-0025 would be best, it sounds like the Core Team will review it. As Lattner notes below, this would require a "pretty high burden of proof." In any case, this discussion can be deferred until Spring — after Swift 4 Phase 1 is completed.
 
 From [David Hart](https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20161003/027647.html):