Stream: t-compiler

Topic: weekly meeting 2019-09-26 #54818


pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 11:28, on Zulip):

Hi @T-compiler/meeting ; the triage meeting will be starting in 2 hours 32 minutes

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 11:29, on Zulip):

I will be doing pre-triage in a parallel topic

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 11:30, on Zulip):

Today we are scheduled to check in with WG-traits

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 11:31, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis are you the rep for WG-traits?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 11:31, on Zulip):

/me goes to file a bug regarding the WG-traits page

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 11:53, on Zulip):

:construction_worker: seeking help: Anyone want to look into fixing "proc-macro param attrs dropping first attrs in impl fns" #64682 ?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 12:47, on Zulip):

:construction_worker: seeking help: Anyone want to look into "error: internal compiler error: unexpected panic: inconsistent resolution for a macro" #64803

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 13:48, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis are you the rep for WG-traits?

yeah sure

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:02, on Zulip):

Hi @T-compiler/meeting

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:02, on Zulip):

Lets get it started in here

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:03, on Zulip):

We dedicate the first 5 minutes to announcements

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:03, on Zulip):

I'm realizing there's something I want to add to today's agenda; whether its an "annoucement" per se is debatable

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:04, on Zulip):

Well I'll just put it this way:

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:04, on Zulip):

:paperclip: agenda item: selecting co-lead for compiler team

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:05, on Zulip):

Announcement: Planning meeting tomorrow

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:05, on Zulip):

Same crab time, same crab place :crab:

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:05, on Zulip):

oh yeah, lets link the proposals that we'll want to schedule

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:06, on Zulip):

https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Ameeting-proposal

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:06, on Zulip):

Not too late to add more :)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:07, on Zulip):

Right: In case people aren't aware, we're trying to use a lighter weight process for proposals than we originally envisaged when these steering meetings first started

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:07, on Zulip):

So you definitely have time to put up your own. Its literally as easy as opening an issue on that repo.

oli (Sep 26 2019 at 14:07, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:09, on Zulip):

very cool stuff!

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:10, on Zulip):

oh also, if you all haven't seen cargo -Z timings yet

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:10, on Zulip):

it is very cool

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:10, on Zulip):

and can be used with rustc

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:11, on Zulip):

(i had a link with a demo, but my attempt to use it errors due to hitting a rate limit)

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:11, on Zulip):

Oh btw, AST borrowck is being removed, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/64790

Wesley Wiser (Sep 26 2019 at 14:12, on Zulip):

@simulacrum has also done some awesome work integrating the rustc -Z self-profile info into perf.rlo

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:12, on Zulip):

oh yeah! I saw that!

simulacrum (Sep 26 2019 at 14:12, on Zulip):

(random link https://perf.rust-lang.org/detailed-query.html?commit=a5bc0f0e3f0c58518c0537d82dee0fcfeb57115c&benchmark=inflate-check&run_name=clean)

Wesley Wiser (Sep 26 2019 at 14:12, on Zulip):

(deleted)

mw (Sep 26 2019 at 14:12, on Zulip):

Oh yeah, you should definitely click around on perf.rlo!

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:12, on Zulip):

to find your own, in the "comparisons" page, click on the measurements

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:14, on Zulip):

pasted image

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:14, on Zulip):

okay so I'll assume that's all today's announcements. (If anyone wants to add more, priv msg me and I'll allocate time at the end for them.)

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:14, on Zulip):

e.g., those timing numbers, or the % change numbers (you can see they are links...)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:15, on Zulip):

so first lets go through the two beta-nominations

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:15, on Zulip):

beta nom: "Fix #64744. Account for the Zero sub-pattern case." #64748

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:16, on Zulip):

To be clear ... I think the timing right now is that we're talking about backports into the beta that has already been cut. @centril , can you confirm that?

simulacrum (Sep 26 2019 at 14:16, on Zulip):

Yes beta has been cut, this PR did not make it, I believe

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:16, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix yes, beta meaning 1.39.0

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:17, on Zulip):

anyway it seems harmless enough to me.

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:17, on Zulip):

(and I haven't seen any opposition in the emojis)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:17, on Zulip):

so beta-approved.

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:17, on Zulip):

fixes an ICE, :ship:

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:18, on Zulip):

beta-nom: "Rustdoc render async function re-export" #64599

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:19, on Zulip):

Impl seems simple and it's early so I think it's safe

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:19, on Zulip):

will get much testing

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:19, on Zulip):

yes okay I'm okay with that logic

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:19, on Zulip):

if something comes up we'll deal with it

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:19, on Zulip):

beta-appoved

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:20, on Zulip):

I'm inclined to err slightly (but not that far) in favor of backports for async-await, esp. in these early weeks

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:21, on Zulip):

Great: there aren't any stable nominations (unsurprising given timing w.r.t. release.)

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:21, on Zulip):

just because "never get a 2nd chance at a 1st impression"

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:21, on Zulip):

still, an ICE or bug will spoil that 1st impression even more, so only slightly :)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:22, on Zulip):

/me just realized (again?) that our long-standing link for listing nominations has is:issue in its query

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:22, on Zulip):

/me tries to make mental note to fix that later.

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:22, on Zulip):

okay I see 6 nominated PRs and issues

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:23, on Zulip):

part of my strategy here is to try to limit too much discussion: If something needs more than a few minutes of discussion, then we should consider a design meeting

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:23, on Zulip):

nominated 1/6: "Make all alt builders produce parallel-enabled compilers" #64722

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:24, on Zulip):

this is tagged both T-compiler and T-infra

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:24, on Zulip):

not sure if there's much for us to discuss at moment, beyond (perhaps) we'd like this?

mw (Sep 26 2019 at 14:24, on Zulip):

I'm OK with it

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:24, on Zulip):

I guess this is the important bit:

Going to nominate for infra and compiler teams as I'd like to check that the claims I've made are true:
* usage is minimal, mostly to deal with LLVM-related regressions (-Zthreads=1 is probably enough to sidestep any bugs in parallel that could impact this)
* we are comfortable altering them in such a "big" way.

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:25, on Zulip):

I feel good with those two things; the main thing here is that we do plan to keep llvm assertions enabled

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:25, on Zulip):

which implies that this will help flush out parallel bugs but won't be a good test for how fast it is

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:26, on Zulip):

one thing I mused about recently was whether we could have any hope of using a tool like rr on one of these builders to try to capture a trace when things go wrong

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:26, on Zulip):

but I don't know if that's anywhere near feasible.

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:26, on Zulip):

Anyway, it seems like no one present objects

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I'll write a comment on the issue saying as much (and pointing out niko's point above about LLVM assertions)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:27, on Zulip):

nominated 2/6: " proc-macro param attrs dropping first attrs in impl fns" #64682

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:27, on Zulip):

I left this nominated because I wasn't comfortable prioritizing it without feedback

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:28, on Zulip):

or wait, that was a different one. :smiley:

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:28, on Zulip):

New stable feature, must be investigated and fixed -- I have the context I guess so I should have a look?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:28, on Zulip):

this one I did prioritize as P-high. But I wanted to see if anyone wanted to fix it

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:28, on Zulip):

@centril if you don't mind, that would be great

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:28, on Zulip):

I will assign you for now?

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:28, on Zulip):

:+1:

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:29, on Zulip):

nominated 3/6: " Deprecate #![plugin] & #[plugin_registrar] with removal deadline: 1.44.0" #64675

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:30, on Zulip):

I haven't caught up with the discussion. We might not be able to remove it in 1.44.0, but I'd like to at least emit a warning so we don't get any new uses of it

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:30, on Zulip):

Anyways, that's what I was going to say on the lang team meeting

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:30, on Zulip):

I suppose this as much as anything should motivate me pointing out a Pre-RFC I posted this morning: Pre RFC Cargo: report future-incompat

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:30, on Zulip):

(at least I think this is related to future-incompatibility stuff in general)

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:31, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix N.B. this is an unstable feature

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:31, on Zulip):

... but I'd like to at least emit a warning so we don't get any new uses of it

ah warnings can be good. One might ask whether it would be silenceable (ie a lint) or not.

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:32, on Zulip):

pnkfelix N.B. this is an unstable feature

fair enough

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:32, on Zulip):

Yea, not doing it as a lint was just much easier

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:32, on Zulip):

Have we any idea how many users we have or if there have been new users arriving?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:33, on Zulip):

is the warning set up in a way where users are directed to give feedback regarding the feature?

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:33, on Zulip):

Don't think so; but people do pop up on internals every now and then saying they want to depend on it

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:33, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix what sort of feedback would that be? I don't see this feature ever getting stabilized

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

Giving out access to the HIR in a stable form or the type system feels like a complete non-starter

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

anyways, we have limited time in this meeting

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I guess the question is whether people know what options they have for migrating away from it.

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

yes sorry

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I'll have to look more closely at the thread, but it seems clear that we can't out-and-out remove the feature yet without more work on a replacement. Warnings might be ok, though I think that's not obvious to me (e.g., I don't know that servo wants to get a warning on each build)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

lets move along, it doesn't sound like anyone is vetoing this

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

I am vetoing it :) I think maybe a design meeting might be in order, though

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

(e.g., I don't know that servo wants to get a warning on each build)

I'm pretty sure they're already unhappy about pre-existing cases of this

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:35, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis let's talk on the lang meeting

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:35, on Zulip):

nominated 4/6: "Rustc panics while compiling gstreamer in RLS" #64659

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:35, on Zulip):

this is the one I didn't know how to prioritize

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:35, on Zulip):

how are we feeling about panics caused solely by RLS at this point?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:36, on Zulip):

P-high? Or P-medium?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:36, on Zulip):

My intuition is P-high, but I worry about whether we are dealing with these properly

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:36, on Zulip):

I feel like that is P-high

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:36, on Zulip):

and also whether we are generally pushing towards rust-analyzer anyway?

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:36, on Zulip):

I'm not sure if @Igor Matuszewski has any thoughts on looking into it

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I'm happy to tag it as P-high for now

mw (Sep 26 2019 at 14:37, on Zulip):

might be a duplicate of that other long-standing RLS issue?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I just want to make sure we have people able to make progress on RLS issues

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:37, on Zulip):

it seems like it's a recent regression

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:37, on Zulip):

I'll tag as P-high then. We can move on beyond that.

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:37, on Zulip):

(except that maybe it's a pre-existing bug that was masked)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:38, on Zulip):

nominated 5/6: "debuginfo/pretty-uninitialized-vec fails with Cannot access memory at address 0x7fffff7fe000" #64343

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I would be extremely happy if this one was treated as P-high because it is preventing me from doing ./x.py test and so it harms my ability to do rollups and such

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:39, on Zulip):

oh, right, this nomination is semi-coupled with PR #60826 " WIP: Implement new gdb/lldb pretty-printers"

mw (Sep 26 2019 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I would so wish that we had somebody taking care of debuginfo :)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:39, on Zulip):

so here's the question: Are we willing/able to maintain debuginfo stuff

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:40, on Zulip):

if we do, then its P-high, no problem.

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:40, on Zulip):

That said, I don't know how to fix this personally.. gdb and me are not buddies.

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:40, on Zulip):

if we don't, then can we afford to keep these tests?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:40, on Zulip):

(because the test failures do cause problems for others elsewhere)

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:41, on Zulip):

Yea, it's mainly the test failures that are a problem for me

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:41, on Zulip):

Maybe this should be discussed in a steering meeting?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:41, on Zulip):

I'm willing to throw a proposal up. The question of "what are we doing long-term about debuginfo" seems pretty broad

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:41, on Zulip):

I thnk that seems good -- maybe we can get the author of #60826 to attend

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:41, on Zulip):

and the only way it would be resolved here quickly would be if someone present said "Oh hey, that's my speciality, I'll take care of it myself."

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:41, on Zulip):

I feel like this might be a place where it would behoove us to "call for help", too

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:42, on Zulip):

/me thinks of another ICE-breaker concept

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:42, on Zulip):

okay I'll make a proposal.

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:42, on Zulip):

basically saying "we need help to maintain this or we may have to remove it"

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:42, on Zulip):

nomination 6/6: "apfloat: improve doc comments" #63416

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:42, on Zulip):

I'm bringing this up because @RalfJ wanted us to weigh in

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:42, on Zulip):

there a couple different things at play

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:43, on Zulip):
  1. these are small doc fixes, but to an upstream component (LLVM)
nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:43, on Zulip):

(no -- to a port of an upstream component)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:43, on Zulip):

I personally agree with @eddyb that we shouldn't have those kinds of deviations localy

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:43, on Zulip):

wait, hold on, sorry I'm not being clear

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:44, on Zulip):

so skade is looking into the licensing issue, which is what I'm waiting on

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:44, on Zulip):

so, right: The PR itself is targeting a port of an upstream component

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:44, on Zulip):

once that's solved, we can do https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/55993

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:44, on Zulip):

@eddyb I wasn't even aware of a potential legal issue; I thought this was merely a process one

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:45, on Zulip):

In terms of it not making sense to maintain deviations like that ourselves

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:45, on Zulip):

the licensing nonsense is why apfloat is still in-tree

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:45, on Zulip):

I don't think that landing these changes really interacts with the legal issue per se..?

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:45, on Zulip):

LLVM relicensed everything since I ported apfloat btw, which has fun consequences

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:45, on Zulip):

there's something else I did want to mention, though

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:46, on Zulip):

anyway the important thing is to keep the changes separate enough IMO so we can tell things apart, this is annoying in-tree

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:46, on Zulip):

Is it your intention @eddyb that the library we should just not touch the libary until it is extracted and licensing clearer up, unless absolutely necessary?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:46, on Zulip):

when someone suggested to @RalfJ that they should close their PR

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:46, on Zulip):

( I can get behind that, we should just say it )

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:46, on Zulip):

@RalfJ responded by saying "hmmph there is precedent of commiting tiny doc changes to apfloat"

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:46, on Zulip):

what do you think of this approach? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63416#issuecomment-524545946

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:46, on Zulip):

some context: there were changes not approved by me and even an out-of-tree copy that also didn't involve me and I hope none of that bites us when the licensing is sorted out

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:47, on Zulip):

@eddyb I'm getting there

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:47, on Zulip):

RalfJ responded by saying "hmmph there is precedent of commiting tiny doc changes to apfloat"

the aforementioned precedent was, in two out of three cases, broad doc changes made by @Alexander Regueiro

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:48, on Zulip):

oh I haven't even seen those

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:48, on Zulip):

when I say "broad", I mean across the rust-lang/rust repo

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:48, on Zulip):

the change to apfloat itself was narrow

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:48, on Zulip):

this is the comment from @RalfJ with links

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:49, on Zulip):

I guess I wanted to call attention to this because even if there was a precedent set here, I don't think we should follow it.

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:50, on Zulip):

if we do https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63416#issuecomment-524545946 then we can keep those changes, and @RalfJ's PR, but have them separate enough from the port itself so they're more like the patches we have on top of LLVM

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:50, on Zulip):

10 minutes left in meeting

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:50, on Zulip):

what do you think of this approach? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63416#issuecomment-524545946

my take is that this sounds like more work than is warranted by some minor improvements to the docs; but if we do want to prevent any changes from landing, moving to a separate repo is prob wise

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:50, on Zulip):

10 minutes left in meeting

argh okay

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:51, on Zulip):

(and maybe even upstream some stuff to LLVM if we have the time to or it's an important bug fix)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:51, on Zulip):

Anyway, does anyone here want to argue against just closing this PR?

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:51, on Zulip):

(TL;DR if @Florian Gilcher or @eddyb think that avoiding this sort of thing will help in sorting licensing stuff out, that seems like a perfectly good reason to hold off, I'll post in the thread)

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:51, on Zulip):

I would not want to close the PR, I just wish we had all of this sorted out already (it was tricky because I kept forgetting about it or not knowing who to talk to)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:51, on Zulip):

okay I'll let you all post in the comment thread for the PR then

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

and not attempt to make any decision one way or the other about it now

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

So that's all the nominations, yay

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

wait can we use S-blocked here?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis do you want to give an ultra-fast update from WG-traits?

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

to avoid triage from threatening to close the PR

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

sure, wg-traits...

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

WG-Traits Update

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:52, on Zulip):

Slowly coming back online. We don't yet have a full roadmap yet.

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:53, on Zulip):

I've dedicated however some big blocks of time each week to get things up and going.

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:53, on Zulip):

Currently pursuing a "few" leads:

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:53, on Zulip):

- improving the chalk api and integration into rust-analyzer (avoiding the need to enumerate all impls, all structs, solving cases where we do too much exploration)
- improving chalk's approach to lazy norm based on that
- investigating altering the way rustc integrates to integrate at a higher-level, like rust-analyzer
- extending chalk to support dyn/impl trait types (@Keith Yeung)
- extending chalk to support specialization (@Sunjay Varma)
- exploring how/why const generics is blocked on lazy norm and how to fix (largly @Aaron Hill)
- enabling trait upcasts (largely @Alexander Regueiro)
- fixing the dyn Trait coherence soundness issues (@blitzerr and I)
- landing the "dyn Trait"-WF changes (me)

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:53, on Zulip):

(Zulip, why no bullet list?!)

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:54, on Zulip):

I expect to get a regular meeting up and going to establish a clearer roadmap "RSN", maybe next week, probably adopting a "focus issues" approach

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:54, on Zulip):

Oh and Jonas Schievink is working on associated_type_defaults :tada:

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:54, on Zulip):

Also I think I owe feedback to basically all those people :eep: -- working on it!

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:54, on Zulip):

Ah, yeah, true!

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:54, on Zulip):

@Ariel Ben-Yehuda landed the impl reservation stuff just now

mw (Sep 26 2019 at 14:54, on Zulip):

(Zulip, why no bullet list?!)

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:54, on Zulip):

so ! may finally get shipped

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:56, on Zulip):

oh yeah, and fixing some ICEs (largely me at this point, but we'll see :)

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 14:56, on Zulip):

anyway, that's it!

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 14:56, on Zulip):

Great thanks @nikomatsakis !

mw (Sep 26 2019 at 14:58, on Zulip):

sounds very exciting about chalk!

simulacrum (Sep 26 2019 at 14:58, on Zulip):

In other news, we released a new version of Rust today: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2019/09/26/Rust-1.38.0.html :tada:

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 14:59, on Zulip):

"A truly boring release" :P

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 15:01, on Zulip):

Oh,

one last announcement

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

I've got a draft PR to create a blog where rust teams can post announcements, meeting notes, and the like. I hope we'll be able to use this more in the future to post minute notes, design meeting thoughts, calls for help, etc

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

crap I forgot about my agenda item

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

heh

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

sigh

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

Okay well

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

just to get the mental juices flowing (ewww?)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

NIko and I have been talking

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:02, on Zulip):

Niko wants to share leadership duty of the compiler team

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

He asked if I would be willing to be co-lead

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

and I would be happy to serve in that role

centril (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix aren't you, de-facto?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

but I was not comfortable taking the role without first at least bringing it up here

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

to give people the chance to put their hat in ring

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

of course

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

doing it in overtime of a triage meeting

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:03, on Zulip):

is not exactly democratic

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:04, on Zulip):

but then again, maybe that's the ideal time since I have to go AFK at this point anyway. :wink:

mw (Sep 26 2019 at 15:04, on Zulip):

I'm fully in support of you becoming co-lead, @pnkfelix!

eddyb (Sep 26 2019 at 15:04, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis regarding https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/63416#issuecomment-535544376 - do you think it's okay to mark the PR as S-blocked?

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:05, on Zulip):

Okay well you all can nonetheless feel free to find some side-channel to discuss your misgivings with such

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:05, on Zulip):

:)

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:05, on Zulip):

that said, thank you everyone in @T-compiler/meeting for attending!

pnkfelix (Sep 26 2019 at 15:05, on Zulip):

and please do come to tomorrow's planning meeting!

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 15:06, on Zulip):

@eddyb (yes)

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 15:09, on Zulip):

pnkfelix aren't you, de-facto?

so this was indeed why I talked to @pnkfelix about it, but I am happy that he brought it up here and I'd like to hear from others if they think they want the role; along those lines, we also created a design meeting proposal to talk about heping to further define the roles in the team, including what exactly co-lead means. (In my view, it means a few things: most obviousy representing the team in various official places, but also mediation and a sense of "buck stops here", i.e., generally trying to ensure that things are proceeding as they ought)

nikomatsakis (Sep 26 2019 at 15:09, on Zulip):

I had a more elegant description somewhere but screw it ;)

Josh Triplett (Sep 27 2019 at 00:11, on Zulip):

Congratulations, @pnkfelix !

Florian Gilcher (Sep 27 2019 at 21:06, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis I think it's okay to merge PRs, if we get signoff from the person contributing to allow us to relicense

Last update: Nov 22 2019 at 05:55UTC