3 ms·

Is this the first time a feature stabilization has been made to a version that has already moved into the beta phase? My understanding was that beta was pretty

Is this the first time a feature stabilization has been made to a version that has already moved into the beta phase? My understanding was that beta was pretty much frozen except for bug fixes.

steveklabnik 10y ago
Yes. It's a perfect storm of coincidences, basically. It's a combination of timing + a tiny feature. Let's take a step back. Macros 1.1 is RFC 1681: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1681-macros-1.1.md https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1681-macr... See the section saying "The initial implementation of librustc_macro is proposed to be incredibly bare bones:" it really is very, very small. So it landed, and while there was some questions that came up, people migrated to it, and it works well. 22 days ago, it was to be reviewed: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35900#issuecomment-264022584 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35900#issuecomment-... However, two things happened: one, the Mozilla all-hands in Hawaii, which shook things up, but secondly, that meant a lot of people, including one of the reviewers, took PTO around that time, to actually see some of the islands. That includes someone who was on the reviewers list. So in general, "oh hey this is waiting on one person who forgot to check a box but isn't reachable now" is awkward. Luckily, in this case, we know that it was just forgetting to check the box; Felix did not have any objections that we were aware of. So we decided to sign off for him, and put it into FCP. This happened so that FCP technically passed the deadline for 1.15, but given how important it is to ship, we're planning on nominating it for a backport, and don't anticipate complaints. So: tiny feature, code wise. Big win for being stable. Procedural mishap involving awkward scheduling. All these things played into it. Make sense?
- Perceptes 10y ago
  Seems totally reasonable. I was just curious if anything like this had happened before. Can't wait for 1.15!
  - the_white_oak 10y ago
    Yes, it did. Cargo had a bunch of features released ahead of time, see https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/3282 https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/3282.

Is this the first time a feature stabilization has been made to a version that has already moved into the beta phase? My understanding was that beta was pretty much frozen except for bug fixes.

steveklabnik 10y ago

Yes. It's a perfect storm of coincidences, basically. It's a combination of timing + a tiny feature. Let's take a step back. Macros 1.1 is RFC 1681: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1681-macros-1.1.md https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1681-macr... See the section saying "The initial implementation of librustc_macro is proposed to be incredibly bare bones:" it really is very, very small. So it landed, and while there was some questions that came up, people migrated to it, and it works well. 22 days ago, it was to be reviewed: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35900#issuecomment-264022584 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/35900#issuecomment-... However, two things happened: one, the Mozilla all-hands in Hawaii, which shook things up, but secondly, that meant a lot of people, including one of the reviewers, took PTO around that time, to actually see some of the islands. That includes someone who was on the reviewers list. So in general, "oh hey this is waiting on one person who forgot to check a box but isn't reachable now" is awkward. Luckily, in this case, we know that it was just forgetting to check the box; Felix did not have any objections that we were aware of. So we decided to sign off for him, and put it into FCP. This happened so that FCP technically passed the deadline for 1.15, but given how important it is to ship, we're planning on nominating it for a backport, and don't anticipate complaints. So: tiny feature, code wise. Big win for being stable. Procedural mishap involving awkward scheduling. All these things played into it. Make sense?

Perceptes 10y ago
Seems totally reasonable. I was just curious if anything like this had happened before. Can't wait for 1.15!
- the_white_oak 10y ago
  Yes, it did. Cargo had a bunch of features released ahead of time, see https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/3282 https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/3282.