Hey @Igor Matuszewski (actually cc @matklad too, if you're around) -- as you may have seen, I've been working on finishing up a draft of 2019 Roadmap. One thing I was thinking about as part of that is that this is a great opportunity to try and broadcast our plans re: the RLS and RLS 2.0
Also, I think there was (from the Tools IDE team?) a kind of "IDE Roadmap" document, right?
(Which I think covered also IntelliJ, for example)
Ah, I see @Igor Matuszewski you mentioned it already in #t-compiler/wg-rls-2.0
Did you wind up posting that somewhere?
Yup, we have that
I'm trying to think how to surface some of that into the Rust Roadmap itself
this got merged into dev tools team orga cc @Manish Goregaokar
not sure if we want to wait and collect all the appropriate tool/subteam roadmaps and publish one collectively
also cc @Pascal
I know we wanted to start coming up and writing those roadmaps down but as I said, unsure if we'll want to do that separately or not
I see, ok
well, let me read it first of all in more depth :)
and try to think what I think it means for larger Rust roadmap
If nothing else, if that roadmap is published somewhere "public", I can include links to it
Re-reading the Roadmap, I don't quite see where to fit a detailed discussion of our plans
I think what needs to happen is that the compiler team needs to trumpet our plans regarding the RLS, RLS 2.0, etc
and then we need to link to those from the roadmap
As I said, to some extent this existing IDE announcement already is that
so for now that's probably enough
However, I don't find a public link to that document .. unless I'm missing something. e.g., the stuff that @Manish Goregaokar wrote in this All Hands recap is different
OK, @Igor Matuszewski, @matklad I took a stab at mentioning RLS 2.0 -- big thanks to @Aaron Turon for helping me to frame it =). I didn't wind up mentioning rust-analyzer by name, because it didn't feel necessary to the "big picture", but tell me what you think.
LGTM(like, this is the perfect summary :) ), “rust-analyzer” name is totally an implementation detail, no need to mention it.
@nikomatsakis sounds great, thanks!