diff --git a/text/0000-manually-drop.md b/text/0000-manually-drop.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..4490b434f41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0000-manually-drop.md
@@ -0,0 +1,264 @@
+- Feature Name: manually_drop
+- Start Date: 2014-06-27
+- RFC PR #: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue #: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+Provide a `ManualDrop<T>` type that stores a `T` inline in memory, but
+doesn't run `T`s destructor by default.
+
+# Motivation
+
+There is currently no long-term way to have partially (un)initialised
+inline data in types, since internal fields always have their own
+destructor run. This is effectively generalising the behaviour of
+`*const` and `*mut` (which do not run destructors on their contents
+automatically) to inline data, i.e. not requiring allocation or other
+indirection like the pointer types.
+
+The motivating example of this is a `SmallVec<T>` type
+(e.g. servo's [smallvec], or @bluss's [arrayvec]), where vector instances
+with a small number of elements are stored directly inline, not on the
+heap. Something like
+
+[smallvec]: https://github.com/servo/rust-smallvec
+[arrayvec]: https://github.com/bluss/arrayvec
+
+```rust
+struct SmallVec<T> {
+    length: uint,
+    capacity: uint,
+    pointer: *mut T,
+    inline: [T, .. 8]
+}
+```
+
+As an example of its behaviour consider:
+
+```rust
+let mut v = SmallVec::new();
+// v.length == v.capacity == 0
+// v.pointer == NULL
+// v.inline = [uninit, uninit, ... ]
+
+
+v.push("foo".to_string());
+// v.length == 1, v.capacity == 0 (or something)
+// v.pointer == NULL
+// v.inline = ["foo", uninit, ... ]
+
+for _ in range(0, 99) {
+    v.push("bar".to_string());
+}
+// v.length == 100, v.capacity >= 100
+// v.pointer == some allocation containing "foo", "bar", "bar", ...
+// v.inline = [uninit, uninit, ... ]
+```
+
+When a `SmallVec` with the above definition is dropped, the
+destructors of all 8 `T`s in `inline` will always be run (no matter
+what happens in the `Drop` implementation of `SmallVec`), leading to
+dramatic unsafety: in the first and last cases, destructors would be
+running on uninitialised data, and in the second, it would correctly
+destroy the first element (`"foo"`) but the last 7 are uninitialised.
+
+With the `ManuallyDrop` type given in this RFC, `SmallVec` could be
+defined as
+
+```rust
+// (sketch, without `unsafe {}`s/casts etc. for clarity)
+
+struct SmallVec<T> {
+    length: uint,
+    capacity: uint,
+    pointer: *mut T,
+
+    // now these 8 T's are not automatically destroyed when a SmallVec
+    // goes out of scope.
+    inline: ManuallyDrop<[T, .. 8]>
+}
+
+impl<T> Drop for SmallVec<T> {
+    fn drop(&mut self) {
+        if !self.pointer.is_null() { // heap allocated
+            // same as Vec<T>'s drop
+            for i in range(0, self.length) {
+                ptr::read(self.pointer.offset(i));
+            }
+            alloc::heap::deallocate(self.pointer, ...);
+        } else {
+            // run destructors on the first `self.length` elements of
+            // `self.inline`, but no others.
+            for i in range(0, self.length) {
+                ptr::read(&self.inline.get().offset(i));
+            }
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+This definition is now safe: destructors run on exactly those elements
+that are valid and no others.
+
+
+To be precise, at the time of writing, Rust defines that destructors
+are safe to run on destroyed values (and guarantees it via the so called
+"drop flag"), meaning this can currently be made safe via:
+
+```rust
+impl<T> Drop for SmallVec<T> {
+    fn drop(&mut self) {
+        // same as above.
+
+        // flag the whole array as dropped: it's fine for the `inner`
+        // field to be redestroyed now.
+        ptr::write_bytes(&mut self.inner as *mut T, mem::POST_DROP_U8, self.inner.len());
+    }
+}
+```
+
+However, the drop flag is likely to disappear: [#5016].
+
+[#5016]: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/5016
+
+NB. not running destructors is now safe in Rust, so this type isn't
+inherently `unsafe`, except for the fact that it is designed to store
+invalid instances of other types.
+
+# Detailed design
+
+A new lang-item type equivalent to
+
+```rust
+pub struct ManuallyDrop<T> {
+    data: T
+}
+```
+
+would be provided, and the compiler would know to *not* run the
+destructor of the `T` when a `ManuallyDrop<T>` instance goes out of
+scope. That is,
+
+```rust
+struct X { num: int };
+impl Drop for X {
+    fn drop(&mut self) { println!("{}", self.num) }
+}
+
+fn main() {
+    let normal = X { x: 0 };
+    let new = ManuallyDrop { data: X { x: 1 } };
+}
+```
+
+would print only `0`, *not* `1`.
+
+This would be modelled after the `UnsafeCell` type, providing similar
+methods:
+
+- `const fn new(x: T) -> ManuallyDrop<T>`
+- `fn get(&self) -> *const T`
+- `fn get_mut(&mut self) -> *mut T`
+- `unsafe fn into_inner(self) -> T`
+
+Additional initialisation functions can be made available:
+
+- `fn zeroed()`
+- `fn uninitialized()`
+
+(These would be `const fn` if possible, but it is not clear to me that
+it is right now.)
+
+The `ManuallyDrop` type would be a black box for representation
+optimisations: it is explicitly designed to be able to store arbitrary
+junk, and so the assumptions made by the compiler conventionally may
+not hold (for example, the `Option` null pointer optimisation [will
+break] if a pointer is null). As a concrete example:
+
+[will break]: https://github.com/servo/rust-smallvec/issues/5
+
+```rust
+type T = Option<Box<u8>>;
+type T_MD = Option<ManuallyDrop<Box<u8>>>;
+
+assert_eq!(size_of::<T>(),     8);
+assert_eq!(size_of::<T_MD>(), 16);
+```
+
+# Alternatives
+
+- This may be adequately modeled by enums in many situations, but I
+  can't imagine it will be easy to wrangle `enum`s to make `SmallVec`
+  work nicely (one variant for each possible on-stack arity? How do
+  you avoid adding an (unnecessary) additional work for the
+  discriminant?), and especially not if we ever get generic number
+  parameters, so something like `struct SmallVec<T, n> { ... inner: ManuallyDrop<[T, .. n]> }`
+  would work, allowing for `SmallVec<T, 2>`, `SmallVec<T, 100>` etc.
+
+- A struct `UninterpretedBytesOfSize<T>` equal to
+  `[u8, .. size_of::<T>()]`, that is, a chunk of memory large enough
+  to store a `T`, but treated as raw memory (i.e. `u8`s). This has the
+  (large) downside of losing all type information, interfering with
+  the compiler's reachability analysis (e.g. for `UnsafeCell`), and
+  making it easier for the programmer to make mistakes w.r.t. an
+  incorrect or forgotten coercion (it's would be identical to C's
+  `void*`).  This is getting more feasible with [`const fn`]
+  support. There needs to be support for explicitly specifying the
+  alignment of the type too (to match `T`).
+
+- Change drop to have (semantically) take full ownership of its
+  contents, so that `mem::forget` works, e.g. `trait Drop { fn
+  drop(self); }` or a design like that in [@eddyb's comment].
+
+- Make no change and just perform manual ownership control via
+  `Option<T>` (or something similar, designed to avoid invalid layout
+  optimisations): a data type can store `Option<T>` instead of `T`
+  with the invariant that the `Option` is always `Some` except for
+  when the destructor runs. This allows one to implement the previous
+  alternative with `take`. E.g. `ManuallyDrop` can be shimmed as
+  something like:
+
+  ```rust
+  struct ManuallyDrop<T> { x: Option<T> }
+  impl<T> ManuallyDrop<T> {
+      const fn new(x: T) -> ManuallyDrop<T> {
+          ManuallyDrop { x: Some(x) }
+      }
+      fn get(&self) -> *const T {
+          self.x.as_ref().unwrap()
+      }
+      fn get_mut(&mut self) -> *mut T {
+          self.x.as_ref_mut().unwrap()
+      }
+      unsafe fn into_inner(self) -> T {
+          self.x.unwrap()
+      }
+  }
+
+  impl Drop for ManuallyDrop {
+      fn drop(&mut self) { mem::forget(self.x.take()) }
+  }
+  ```
+
+  This approach is used by [arrayvec] but has many downsides:
+
+  - (much) larger compiled code when not using `unsafe` (`unwrap`
+    includes branches and unwinding etc.)
+  - more invariants to track
+  - larger data types
+
+[`const fn`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0911-const-fn.md
+[@eddyb's comment]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/197#issuecomment-110850383
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+- Should a `ManuallyDrop<T>` always be `Copy`? It no longer has a
+  destructor and so the only risk of double freeing (etc.) would be
+  when the user writes such a thing. This would allow it to be a
+  maximally flexible building-block, but I cannot think of a specific
+  use-case for `ManuallyDrop<NonCopy>` to be `Copy`. Being `Copy`
+  would make `ManuallyDrop` entirely the inline equivalent of `*const`
+  and `*mut`, since they are both `Copy` always.
+
+- The name.