btw @Josh Triplett, @Pietro Albini was mentioning that they've got some unmerged edits for the tier rfc
and that this is likely the major holdup I think?
@nikomatsakis That's the remaining thing I need to do, figure out how and where to incorporate Pietro's feedback. I don't want to completely bifurcate the tiers into host-tools and non-host-tools, but I do want to incorporate that feedback nonetheless.
Still planning to do that.
@Josh Triplett what's your plan to integrate it?
@Pietro Albini (Currently multitasking several times over; I'm attending Linux Plumbers Conference.)
@Josh Triplett and I'm releasing 1.46.0 :P
@Pietro Albini I'd like to add some text in each section about additional requirements related to host tooling.
so you're not alone with not much time to talk today :smiley:
btw @Josh Triplett, I think bifurcating the tiers is going to be easier to understand for users, and provides a clearer guarantee of what's happening
why are you wary of bifurcating?
an example of this being confusing -- https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/242906-t-compiler.2Farm/topic/Cross.20compiling.20aarch64-linux-musl.20from.20x84-linux-gnu
@Pietro Albini Among other things, I feel like the complexity of the RFC grows non-linearly with the number of tiers (because of interactions between various requirements), and I want to keep it to 3 rather than 5-6 tiers.
I totally understand the complexity
but I feel like splitting tier 1 and 2 into two separate groups (development environment and compilation target) is what actually represents the level of support we want to provide
having to explain that one target is yes tier 2, but "less tier 2" than that other target is not great
Yeah I agree, I think its important to distinguish because it frankly is a different level of support and capability. I don't think it requires separate tiers in the policy though. I think it would be sufficient to present and talk about tiers as "Host Tier X" and "Target Tier X" to users and in the guide level explanation, and in the actual policy there's requirements in each tier along the lines of "Additionally to qualify as a host target of this tier you must satisfy X, Y, and Z".
yeah copy-pasting the requirements in the reference level explaination is not worth it
totally agree with that
Right, "host/non-host" is a binary attribute of each tier level.
Ok, then we're completely on the same page.
I'm planning to make a subheading under each of tier 2 and 1 for the additional host requirements.
@Josh Triplett did you have a chance to add the development platform/compilation target split?