4 ms·
> Regarding point 2, we do expect to require feedback and assistance from teams within the Rust project, particularly with regards to what parts of the language
by wyldfire 7y ago
> Regarding point 2, we do expect to require feedback and assistance from teams within the Rust project, particularly with regards to what parts of the language to formalize, and the most practical methods to achieve this.
It seems like some Rust developers are particular about the governance of the language and overall ecosystem [1]. This strict subsetting seems like it could be a good opportunity to engage the team. Has that already happened? If not, maybe it would be good to create an RFC and/or working group, even if the effort happens independent from the core rustlang dev. If there's some explicit endorsement, it could include guidance and an easier way to upstream changes.
> Who is this effort aimed towards?
I wonder if "cryptography" is a domain that applies here? Things like enclaves/signed bootloaders are things where mistakes can be very costly.
[1] https://www.rust-lang.org/governance https://www.rust-lang.org/governance
- steveklabnik 7y agoThe Ferrous folks are quite well connected; many of them are on the teams. They’ve been in touch and will be doing the right thing, for sure.
- hobofan 7y agoOne of the founders of Ferrous Systems is a Rust Core Team Observer and member of the Governance WG and one of the other founders is a member of the Embedded WG, so I think they are very aware of Rust governance processes.
- jamesmunns 7y agoWe've definitely reached out to the Core team (a few weeks ago), and are in the process of reaching out to larger parts of the project. Cryptography is certainly an interesting target - they certainly could benefit from the specification of the language, despite not being legally required similar to the other domains listed here.