-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Move stability attribute for items under the ip
feature
#85672
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…module to the methods themselves
(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
label
May 25, 2021
I think this should be 'safe' in the sense that we can't accidentally stabilize anything, so @bors r+ |
📌 Commit 87cf2d4 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
May 26, 2021
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2021
Move stability attribute for items under the `ip` feature The `#[unstable]` attribute for items under the `ip` feature is currently located on the `std::net::ip` module itself. This is unusual, and less readable. This has sidetracked discussion about these items numerous times (rust-lang#60145 (comment), rust-lang#76098 (comment), rust-lang#76098 (comment), rust-lang#75019 (comment), rust-lang#75019 (comment)) and lead to incorrect assumptions about which items are actually stable (rust-lang#60145 (comment), rust-lang#76098 (comment)). This PR moves the attribute from the module to the items themselves.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 26, 2021
Rollup of 12 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#84048 (Avoid CJK legacy fonts in Windows) - rust-lang#85529 (doc: clarify Mutex::try_lock, etc. errors) - rust-lang#85590 (Fix bootstrap using host exe suffix for cargo) - rust-lang#85610 (Fix pointer provenance in <[T]>::copy_within) - rust-lang#85623 (Remove stray .stderr files) - rust-lang#85645 (Demote `ControlFlow::{from|into}_try` to `pub(crate)`) - rust-lang#85647 (Revert "Move llvm submodule updates to rustbuild") - rust-lang#85666 (Document shared_from_cow functions) - rust-lang#85668 (Fix tasklist example in rustdoc book.) - rust-lang#85672 (Move stability attribute for items under the `ip` feature) - rust-lang#85699 (Update books) - rust-lang#85701 (Update cargo) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2021
…htriplett Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local` Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`, see also rust-lang#85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far. Unicast site-local addresses (`fec0::/10`) were deprecated in [IETF RFC rust-lang#3879](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3879), see also [RFC rust-lang#4291 Section 2.5.7](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.7). Any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses. This is mentioned in the docs of `is_unicast_site_local` and already implemented in `is_unicast_global`, which considers addresses in `fec0::/10` to have global scope, thus overlapping with `is_unicast_site_local`. Given that RFC rust-lang#3879 was published in 2004, long before Rust existed, and it is specified that any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses, I don't see how a user would ever have a need for `is_unicast_site_local`. It is also confusing that currently both `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` can be `true` for an address, but an address can actually only have a single scope. The deprecating RFC mentions that Site-Local scope was confusing to work with and that the classification of an address as either Link-Local or Global better matches the mental model of users. There has been earlier discussion of removing `is_unicast_site_local` (rust-lang#60145 (comment)) which decided against it, but that had the incorrect assumption that the method was already stable; it is not. (This confusion arose from the placement of the unstable attribute on the entire module, instead of on individual methods, resolved in rust-lang#85672) r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2021
…riplett Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local` Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`, see also rust-lang#85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far. Unicast site-local addresses (`fec0::/10`) were deprecated in [IETF RFC rust-lang#3879](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3879), see also [RFC rust-lang#4291 Section 2.5.7](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.7). Any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses. This is mentioned in the docs of `is_unicast_site_local` and already implemented in `is_unicast_global`, which considers addresses in `fec0::/10` to have global scope, thus overlapping with `is_unicast_site_local`. Given that RFC rust-lang#3879 was published in 2004, long before Rust existed, and it is specified that any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses, I don't see how a user would ever have a need for `is_unicast_site_local`. It is also confusing that currently both `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` can be `true` for an address, but an address can actually only have a single scope. The deprecating RFC mentions that Site-Local scope was confusing to work with and that the classification of an address as either Link-Local or Global better matches the mental model of users. There has been earlier discussion of removing `is_unicast_site_local` (rust-lang#60145 (comment)) which decided against it, but that had the incorrect assumption that the method was already stable; it is not. (This confusion arose from the placement of the unstable attribute on the entire module, instead of on individual methods, resolved in rust-lang#85672) r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
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.
The
#[unstable]
attribute for items under theip
feature is currently located on thestd::net::ip
module itself. This is unusual, and less readable. This has sidetracked discussion about these items numerous times (#60145 (comment), #76098 (comment), #76098 (comment), #75019 (comment), #75019 (comment)) and lead to incorrect assumptions about which items are actually stable (#60145 (comment), #76098 (comment)).This PR moves the attribute from the module to the items themselves.