Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Minimum Supported Rust Version #2495
RFC: Minimum Supported Rust Version #2495
Changes from 8 commits
800825c
4ec9682
f9057da
a43e9e1
00a3022
1e37f4c
a6e42da
e4c638e
7580c20
1aa6476
84aecf1
a78e4b1
73bdc96
7657ef4
ad12112
1a186ea
0cacbb6
386fd8a
33ea5a7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Some things in this section are written in the wrong tense, given that they are matters that this RFC does not decide upon. Because they’re hypothetical or tentative plans, “would” should be used instead of “will”, or else it’s easy to get confused about what’s in scope for implementation, when reading the RFC. For example, part way through reading it I was thinking that influencing version resolution was in scope due to the use of the word “will”, but it is in fact designated as possible future work.
(If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3657/when-should-i-use-would-would-have-will-and-will-have explains it decently. Also let it be known that I love the term subjunctive mood.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I forgot to change it after I moved this text to the "future work" section. I will try to fix it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implying Rust 1.0 seems mostly incompatible with this statement from earlier in the document:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The cited text is one of the requirements for the
rust
field value if it's provided explicitly, while theedition
text is about how MSRV should be inferred if explicit value is not provided. I guess a better wording could be something like this:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This entire list is poorly formatted for reading, with this line being particularly problematic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems too vague to have much meaning; there are wildly different things it could mean, with completely different trade-offs. What is automatically calculating the MSRV? rustc, cargo, crates.io? How is it conveyed? Would it play well with the future work of MSRV influencing version resolution? I can think of two radically different approaches to this off the top of my head, one of which is completely different from this proposal and one of which boils down to just augmenting the
package.rust
field of this specification with some tooling to automate discovery of the MSRV.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't want to cover all potential approaches, as you do say yourself there are a lot of options to choose from. The main idea here is that instead of asking people to manually select MSRV via the
rust
field, we could rely on some automatic system (be it on rustc, cargo or crates.io side) to partially solve issues which have motivated this RFC.