Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 9, 2018. It is now read-only.

Latest commit

 

History

History
53 lines (38 loc) · 3.11 KB

meeting-2015-07-15.md

File metadata and controls

53 lines (38 loc) · 3.11 KB

Meeting 2015-07-15

Attending

  • aturon, nmatsakis, huonw, acrichto, brson, pcwalton, steveklabnik

Agenda

  • Breaking changes (nmatsakis)
  • Core team meeting schedule
  • Specialization vs dropck (aturon)

Regression testing

  • Regression test on nightly is pretty bad. Needs investigation.
  • acrichto: a bunch were missing docs
  • aturon: How should we treat lints in regression testing?
  • nmatsakis: I think we should compile in the same way we would for upstream crates.
  • brson: What can we do for 1.2 re: lint changes?
  • acrichto: Cargo change won't be ready by then; still in RFC state.
  • brson: I'd like to do something
  • nmatsakis: So we can roll back the lint change (or make it more of a warning -- but that would require changing the lint infrastructure). We can try to fix the crates ourselves...
  • acrichto: The fix is trivial. If they needed to be fixed, it would've happened already. So I think these are crates that aren't getting a lot of use. Not clear what the impact of us fixing it would be.
  • huon: But we also want to take breakage seriously.
  • brson: Right, I don't want to give special treatment to crates that are popular.
  • acrichto: But this was intended breakage.
  • steveklabnik: We could reach out to the authors quickly -- try to do both. I would be happy to do PRs for the affected crates right away.

Servo breakage

  • aturon: So for breakage that's intended and allowed, what does it mean to take it seriously? What should we ahve done for the issue that affected Servo this week?
  • pcwalton: Yes, in that case the change was a clear bugfix to linkage that needed to move forward. As I understand there was not a lot of heads up about this change. (We only needed to do rustup because of dependency changes from connect -> join.) So we didn't know what to do, and the fix is nontrivial -- we still haven't fully fixed it.

[.. Some discussion of specifics ..]

  • pcwalton: If we have reason to believe that a breaking change is going to happen -- especially with significant fallout -- it'd be nice to know in advance.
  • brson: So the fallout here was pretty unexpected, yes?
  • acrichto: I would have said it was a breaking change; I could have predicted that this use case would break. But it didn't occur to me.
  • brson: From end user perspective, any change to behavior is a problem.
  • nmatsakis: If we take "regression" to mean "your code stopped compiling", then at least we get a heads up, even if certain regressions are allowed.
  • brson: We could have had the foresight, but we didn't. We don't have any obvious procedure for this except for file a bug.
  • aturon: We caught this in nightly, so at least we'd know to alert stable users. Not clear how to alert nightly users.

[ .. A lot more discussion about what do to for this case .. ]

Connect -> join

  • This renaming forced a bunch of packages to move forward in nightly in a non-back-compat way.
  • Idea: deprecated as of version! this will allow us to schedule deprecation for the future, and show that in Rust doc.

specialization + dropck

  • Reviewed the issues arising in the interaction of specialization and dropck, see rust-lang/rfcs#1210