Don't build tools by default with x.py build

[jyn514]

Proposal

After #326, the default filter for x.py build is essentially x.py build library/std src/tools/*. Since most contributors don't work on rustdoc or other tools, this might be unexpected, and will delay compile times if you're only working on the standard library. I propose to change the default filter to x.py build library/std.

For additional discussion, see rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org#666 (comment), https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-t-compiler.2Fmajor-changes/topic/Improve.20defaults.20in.20x.2Epy.20compiler-team.23326/near/206924772.

Mentors or Reviewers

@RalfJung (and possibly @eddyb) for creating a consensus
@Mark-Simulacrum for the implementation

Process

The main points of the Major Change Process is as follows:

• File an issue describing the proposal.
• A compiler team member or contributor who is knowledgeable in the area can second by writing @rustbot second.
  • Finding a "second" suffices for internal changes. If however you are proposing a new public-facing feature, such as a -C flag, then full team check-off is required.
  • Compiler team members can initiate a check-off via @rfcbot fcp merge on either the MCP or the PR.
• Once an MCP is seconded, the Final Comment Period begins. If no objections are raised after 10 days, the MCP is considered approved.

You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.

Comments

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

[rustbot]

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

[jonas-schievink]

@rustbot second

[jyn514]

The implementation for this was closed, @spastorino can you remove major-change-accepted?

[spastorino]

You meant that this was accepted but then rejected and it's not going to be implemented? or why would you remove major-change-accepted?

[jyn514]

You meant that this was accepted but then rejected and it's not going to be implemented?

Yes, that's what I mean. See rust-lang/rust#77489 for more discussion.

As an aside, I'm not a giant fan of the MCP process for exactly things like this, objections happen afterwards and the 'approval' doesn't actually mean anything.