Stream: t-compiler/wg-prioritization

Topic: I-prioritize #72340 Regression: `[Body::empty]` cannot be re


triagebot (May 18 2020 at 23:24, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization issue #72340 has been requested for prioritization.

LeSeulArtichaut (May 18 2020 at 23:32, on Zulip):

This is a regression to Rustdoc, should we remove I-prioritize directly?

Wesley Wiser (May 18 2020 at 23:36, on Zulip):

Rustdoc does share a lot of code with rustc. However, the implicated PR only touches rustdoc.

Wesley Wiser (May 18 2020 at 23:36, on Zulip):

Perhaps rustdoc is out of our jurisdiction?

Santiago Pastorino (May 19 2020 at 12:35, on Zulip):

So, I think this is out of our scope

Santiago Pastorino (May 19 2020 at 12:36, on Zulip):

but unsure if rustdoc team would like to use I-prioritize or what

Santiago Pastorino (May 19 2020 at 12:36, on Zulip):

I'm pretty sure that we're the only ones using this tag but maybe they are interesting

Santiago Pastorino (May 19 2020 at 12:37, on Zulip):

we may want to skip things tagged with I-prioritize that are already tagged as T-rustdoc, T-infra or T-release

Santiago Pastorino (May 19 2020 at 12:37, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix thoughts?

triagebot (May 19 2020 at 17:10, on Zulip):

Issue #72340's prioritization request has been removed.

Santiago Pastorino (May 19 2020 at 17:13, on Zulip):

commented and removed the label meanwhile we keep discussing what to do with these issues but it may be a good idea to not auto label them as I-prioritize when they are tagged as T-rustdoc, T-infra or T-release until those teams decide to use this label for something

pnkfelix (May 20 2020 at 20:19, on Zulip):

I'm going to check in the rustdoc Discord channel and see if I can get clarity on how these issues should be handled

Santiago Pastorino (May 20 2020 at 20:38, on Zulip):

@pnkfelix FYI #72385

Santiago Pastorino (May 20 2020 at 20:38, on Zulip):

which goes with triagebot#561

pnkfelix (May 20 2020 at 21:18, on Zulip):

@Santiago Pastorino sorry, I'm not familiar with triagebot's internals. When does this logic run?

pnkfelix (May 20 2020 at 21:19, on Zulip):

in other words, what cases are being skipped here? (I think you are probably right that we do not want to deal with prioritizing issues related to rustdoc, just like T-infra and T-release. But I want to make sure I understand what it is that you are linking up above.)

LeSeulArtichaut (May 20 2020 at 22:46, on Zulip):

Basically:

I hope that all makes sense :D

LeSeulArtichaut (May 20 2020 at 22:47, on Zulip):

Zulip sent the message twice appearently :eyes:

Santiago Pastorino (May 21 2020 at 13:10, on Zulip):

hey, have just seen these messages and yeah @LeSeulArtichaut explained this perfect :)

Santiago Pastorino (May 21 2020 at 13:10, on Zulip):

wanted to also add that part of the plan would be to slowly get rid of unprioritized regression-from-stable-to-stable from now on

LeSeulArtichaut (May 21 2020 at 13:12, on Zulip):

You saw you are currently manually adding I-prioritize to all regressions?

Santiago Pastorino (May 21 2020 at 13:12, on Zulip):

all new regression-from-stable-to-stable issues will be prioritized as they will get the I-prioritize label and we will prioritize them, but we are in the process of slowly prioritizing old ones

Santiago Pastorino (May 21 2020 at 13:12, on Zulip):

LeSeulArtichaut said:

You saw you are currently manually adding I-prioritize to all regressions?

what I've proposed yesterday is ... let's tag with I-prioritize 3 or 4 per week

Santiago Pastorino (May 21 2020 at 13:13, on Zulip):

we already have 4 this week :)

LeSeulArtichaut (May 21 2020 at 13:13, on Zulip):

How many of them are there?

Santiago Pastorino (May 21 2020 at 13:14, on Zulip):

20

LeSeulArtichaut (May 21 2020 at 13:14, on Zulip):

Alright, thanks

Santiago Pastorino (May 21 2020 at 13:14, on Zulip):

if we keep doing this in 5 weeks we won't have unprioritized regressions

Last update: Jun 05 2020 at 22:15UTC