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)
in particular, backporting it is a maintenance of status quo rather than changing anything
@nikomatsakis or @pnkfelix could you change something here?
Oh, did it miss the train for the release?
I didn't realize it had. :+1: to backporting it, thank you.
@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?
I guess there is related discussion in Discord; I’ll go look at that
Yeah accepting the backport
I can take care of getting the appropriate patch for beta put together
@simulacrum we discussed the matter in the lang team meeting last night. Its not resolved whether we will do the backport here
or rather, argh this is so annoying due to the coupling with PR #63909
it doesn't really make sense not to backport it though
that patch is already both on stable and nightly
I think I'm going to add a note claiming this to the FCP merge comment of niko's on #63909
Or ... argh, thje FCP merge is just for merge to master; its not regarding a backport
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
(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...)
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
oh, I guess the second "it" is #62603
Yeah that’s what i went with, in terms of my unilateral beta-accept of #62603