Stream: t-compiler

Topic: beta backport for #62603


simulacrum (Sep 12 2019 at 17:58, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/62603 was discussed in the release team meeting today; we concluded that we should probably backport it to be consistent with stable (and avoid regressing crates for a single release cycle for no reason)

simulacrum (Sep 12 2019 at 17:58, on Zulip):

in particular, backporting it is a maintenance of status quo rather than changing anything

simulacrum (Sep 12 2019 at 17:59, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis or @pnkfelix could you change something here?

Josh Triplett (Sep 12 2019 at 18:00, on Zulip):

Oh, did it miss the train for the release?

Josh Triplett (Sep 12 2019 at 18:01, on Zulip):

I didn't realize it had. :+1: to backporting it, thank you.

pnkfelix (Sep 12 2019 at 18:12, on Zulip):

@simulacrum what do you mean by “could you change something here”? Ie, are you asking if we can/should approve the back port nomination ? Or are you asking us to find someone to do the backport itself?

pnkfelix (Sep 12 2019 at 18:14, on Zulip):

I guess there is related discussion in Discord; I’ll go look at that

simulacrum (Sep 12 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

Yeah accepting the backport

simulacrum (Sep 12 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

I can take care of getting the appropriate patch for beta put together

simulacrum (Sep 12 2019 at 18:18, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix ^

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 08:54, on Zulip):

@simulacrum we discussed the matter in the lang team meeting last night. Its not resolved whether we will do the backport here

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 08:56, on Zulip):

or rather, argh this is so annoying due to the coupling with PR #63909

Pietro Albini (Sep 13 2019 at 08:58, on Zulip):

it doesn't really make sense not to backport it though

Pietro Albini (Sep 13 2019 at 08:58, on Zulip):

that patch is already both on stable and nightly

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 08:59, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis and @Josh Triplett : at this point, is it fair to say that the FCP merge request on PR #63909 is strongly coupled with an implicit merge request on PR #62603 ?

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 08:59, on Zulip):

I think I'm going to add a note claiming this to the FCP merge comment of niko's on #63909

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 09:01, on Zulip):

Or ... argh, thje FCP merge is just for merge to master; its not regarding a backport

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 09:02, on Zulip):

okay then, so the question of whether to beta backport #63909 is probably indeed strongly coupled to the question of whether to beta backport it. I wasn't aware the patch was only missing from beta. I need go go AFK for a moment while, I'll look at that again in a sec 30-60 minutes

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 09:33, on Zulip):

ah i see, there was discussion about how to handle #62603 on PR #63909.

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 09:36, on Zulip):

(I did specifically ask that we be clear about which PR's we were talking about during the T-lang meeting last night; I probably should have reiterated that request when I saw the notes didn't even mention #62603...)

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 09:53, on Zulip):

okay well I unilaterally beta-accepted PR #62603

nikomatsakis (Sep 13 2019 at 12:13, on Zulip):

okay then, so the question of whether to beta backport #63909 is probably indeed strongly coupled to the question of whether to beta backport it

I'm...having trouble parsing this sentence

nikomatsakis (Sep 13 2019 at 12:13, on Zulip):

oh, I guess the second "it" is #62603

nikomatsakis (Sep 13 2019 at 12:14, on Zulip):

my personal take is that backporting #62603 is mandatory, and #63909 is optional

centril (Sep 13 2019 at 12:17, on Zulip):

I think we are backporting #62603 but not #63909

pnkfelix (Sep 13 2019 at 12:17, on Zulip):

Yeah that’s what i went with, in terms of my unilateral beta-accept of #62603

Last update: Nov 22 2019 at 05:35UTC