Stream: t-compiler/wg-prioritization

Topic: I-prioritize #71078 `static FOO:Foo=FOO;` doesn't cause cycl


triagebot (Apr 14 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

Issue #71078's prioritization request has been removed.

triagebot (Apr 14 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization issue #71078 has been requested for prioritization.

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 14 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

:D

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:13, on Zulip):

@centril added a priority and the tag here, I guess @centril wants us to confirm those priorities, right?

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:15, on Zulip):

Seems P-high to me

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:15, on Zulip):

I'm inclined to raise the issue to P-critical though

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:17, on Zulip):

I don't think it meets that bar for me

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:17, on Zulip):

Because it is a soundness hole that ruins privacy based reasoning in unsafe code

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:18, on Zulip):

It's already in the wild though right?

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:18, on Zulip):

Sure

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:20, on Zulip):

hmm I'd also go with P-critical I think

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:20, on Zulip):

my guess is that if our bar is too high we would never use this label :)

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:20, on Zulip):

We had some discussion about this last week and I think the deciding thing in my mind is that IMO we wouldn't delay shipping vnext over this issue

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:20, on Zulip):

Which seems like the defining characteristic of P-critical to me

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:21, on Zulip):

@Wesley Wiser I personally think "we wouldn't delay a release" isn't the right bar

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:21, on Zulip):

yeah, I was thinking on P-critical as potentially delays the release but not necessarily

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:21, on Zulip):

and maybe with this one we shouldn't delay the release

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:21, on Zulip):

More towards what @Santiago Pastorino says

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:21, on Zulip):

it's key to define our priority levels, @o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur is working on it

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

I would be ok with P-high (I even gave it that label initially), but it does feel a bit "P-higher" ;)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

centril said:

I would be ok with P-high (I even gave it that label initially), but it does feel a bit "P-higher" ;)

yeah, I'm more concerned about this

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

it may also get lost in 50 P-high issues

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 14 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

Maybe we can define P-critical as "we should revisit those issues before a release"?

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

@LeSeulArtichaut I like that

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 14 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

It's the idea behind "potential release blocker"

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:23, on Zulip):

yes

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:23, on Zulip):

agree

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 14 2020 at 15:23, on Zulip):

But this definition is more... concrete

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:23, on Zulip):

That's a really interesting idea

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:24, on Zulip):

Is the hope with revisiting the issues that somebody would step up and fix it?

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:25, on Zulip):

That's how I think about it at least

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:25, on Zulip):

That's fine, I'm just currious

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:25, on Zulip):

In this case, Ralf is already aware, but maybe he will need a reminder =)

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:25, on Zulip):

:)

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:25, on Zulip):

I think for that to be effective, it needs to be a really short list

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:26, on Zulip):

Right now we have 0 P-criticals

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:26, on Zulip):

I figure 5 issues is a reasonable amount of issue we can handle

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:28, on Zulip):

should we change then to P-critical?

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:28, on Zulip):

Yeah. I just want to make sure we keep that in mind otherwise P-critical just becomes the new P-high

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 14 2020 at 15:28, on Zulip):

no no, we are going to be the guardians of this, so it doesn't happen :slight_smile:

triagebot (Apr 14 2020 at 15:29, on Zulip):

Issue #71078's prioritization request has been removed.

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:30, on Zulip):

This does feel potentially resolvable within a release cycle (though, perhaps not this one since we ship in a week) so I think it would be a good candidate for P-critical.

Wesley Wiser (Apr 14 2020 at 15:30, on Zulip):

If it's not resolved by the next, next release, then I think we should re-evaluate.

centril (Apr 14 2020 at 15:31, on Zulip):

Sounds good

Last update: Jun 05 2020 at 22:50UTC