Stream: t-compiler/meetings

Topic: [weekly meeting] 2020-09-10 #54818


Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 21:08, on Zulip):

Hi @T-compiler/meeting; the triage meeting will happen tomorrow at

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 21:08, on Zulip):

The @WG-prioritization have done pre-triage in #t-compiler/wg-prioritization/alerts

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 21:09, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization have prepared the meeting agenda

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 21:09, on Zulip):

We will have checkins from @T-compiler/WG-meta and @WG-mir-opt

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 21:09, on Zulip):

I've notified team leads in advance but just in case things need to be updated or something ...

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 21:10, on Zulip):

@oli do you have something else you want to add about @WG-mir-opt?

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 21:11, on Zulip):

@nikomatsakis is there something we can share about @T-compiler/WG-meta (unsure if it's really active the wg) ?

DPC (Sep 09 2020 at 21:11, on Zulip):

i don't think we have discussed anything

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 13:36, on Zulip):

Hi @T-compiler/meeting, triage meeting will be starting in ~ 24 minutes, at

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 13:37, on Zulip):

Check out the meeting agenda

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 13:49, on Zulip):

wanted to note that the agenda is heavily packed

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 13:49, on Zulip):

2 beta nominations, 2 PRs waiting on team, 3 P-critical, 5 nominations + an extra thing to discuss in the nominations section

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

Hi @T-compiler/meeting! Add a :wave: emoji to show you're here :)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:01, on Zulip):

we will start off with 5 minutes for ...

Announcements

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

oops! I meant next Friday, Sep 18

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:02, on Zulip):

i.e., not tomorrow

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:03, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:04, on Zulip):

WG checkins

@WG-mir-opt checkin by @oli:

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:05, on Zulip):

(i'll pause here since I didn't wait above to see if anyone had additional announcements to add)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

okay next up

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

Beta-nominations

T-compiler

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:09, on Zulip):

weird to me that #73084 doesn't seem to mention any of the issues that are mentioned in #76331 ...

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

ah but issue #74616 does mention #73084

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

(and #76331, the PR under discussion, is to address issue #74616 )

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

woah this seems like quite the hack :)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:11, on Zulip):

(sorry, I forgot to add the emojis to vote on the issue description at first; they are there now)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

I guess we need to backport this

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:14, on Zulip):

since if we don't, it kind of defeats having any hack in place at all, right?

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:15, on Zulip):

seems like it

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:16, on Zulip):

okay. backport approved...

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

/me is sitting here thinking about whether we need to dedicate time to issues marked C-future-compatibility. Not something we'd do every week, but it might be good to visit that collection of issues somewhere in each 6 week release cycle...

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:17, on Zulip):

I do think we need to

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

I originally hoped that monitoring those issues would be something the prioritization group could manage

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

but that is perhaps a discussion for a steering meeting

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

(it maybe something we could delegate to the prioritization group)

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

but I do think a steering meeting to discuss how to do so would be good

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):
nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

it seems like we should have a schedule

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 14:18, on Zulip):

:+1: to both of you :)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:19, on Zulip):

oh interesting

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

but the actual outcome

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

is that tools are looking at that output, not humans

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:21, on Zulip):

and so its a lot more impactful for us to fix this

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

as described in #76352, at least if I understand correctly

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:22, on Zulip):

yeah backport approved

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):

libs-impl

T-rustdoc

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):

Stable-nominations

T-compiler

libs-impl

T-rustdoc

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):

PRs S-waiting-on-team

T-compiler

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:23, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

from @mati865 : "IMO the proper solution here would be to check if filesystem supports proper permissions and otherwise skip the check but I doubt that's easy to do."

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:24, on Zulip):

hmm

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

I forgot about this

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

seems like nobody had any advice :)

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

personally I think we can land it

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:25, on Zulip):

then it is kind of hard to argue against adding the quick fix...

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:26, on Zulip):

I don't fully understand what this check is about, admittedly

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

we know it works on CI and no one should really do this

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

so I'm fine with delaying checks until CI

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:27, on Zulip):

wait

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

this is just about the src/tools/tidy ?

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

I see, so we have some tidy check that checks for files not being executable

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

and somehow it is giving false errors on windows

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:28, on Zulip):

right

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

windows doesn't track it as a property of the file I think? Or something like that

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

(or at least not on all file systems?)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

and someone previously added stuff to detect that scenario (by looking for "Microsoft" in /proc/version, but that doesn't cover WSL2

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:29, on Zulip):

and I think @mati865 's argument is that you shouldn't be using WSL2 to build Rust atop a mounted windows filesystem

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

i.e. that this code is papering around something that is an anti-pattern in their view

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

I see.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:30, on Zulip):

but nonetheless, I still think this won't affect our CI at all. And so the only question is whether we want to be "accommodating" to this use case (which, admittedly, might have other problems that we don't know about here)

Wesley Wiser (Sep 10 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

(AIUI mounted Windows filesystems inside WSL2 are extremely slow)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

or if we should follow @mati865 's advice and try to discourage such usage.

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

Yeah. It doesn't seem worth thinking about for very long.

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

I don't really care if people want to build Rust a slow way, that's their problem, so I'd be semi-inclined to land it.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

but if we were to follow @mati865 's advice, does that generalize to "we should remove the /proc/version inspection for [Mm]icrosoft entirely ?

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

But I'm ultimately fairly indifferent.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

yes I think I agree with that

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

Right, I was going to say: if the check wasn't already present, I'd prob feel differently. But I guess we need that check for regular windows tidy?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

e.g. we still have that debug = false option in config.toml

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

even though we know that in practice almost no one is going to be able to use it

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

I think we should move on. I can follow up on this with a PR that disables this check locally.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

okay. We can add a comment with a link to this conversatino

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

on zulip-archive.rlo

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:32, on Zulip):

Sounds like we should close in favor of @simulacrum doing something

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

I can follow-up on that thread

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):

okay. I don't mind if we land. I don't mind if we close.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:33, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

/me has forgotten the distinctions between cross-platform vs development in tier 2. Probably just about whether we are promising to keep rustc buildable going forward on that target?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

/me goes to look in forge for an answer

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:34, on Zulip):

https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/platform-support.html#platform-support

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

hmm, does that page actually document the distinction? I guess its in the std and host check boxes in the tables?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

yes I guess it is the sentence "For some platforms only the standard library is compiled, but for others rustc and cargo are too."

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:35, on Zulip):

I think it means that it would become a host

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

I don't see aarch64-musl anywhere on there but

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

in general I feel like aarch64 is a pretty widely used platform and we have some amount of support for problems that arise

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

its at aarch64-unknown-linux-musl

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

I guess we could review the considerations from the Tier RFC :)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:36, on Zulip):

right?

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

duh, ok

Pietro Albini (Sep 10 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

oh yeah "cross compilation" => just std, "development platform" => everything

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

yeah I think in general we're going to be needing more and more aarch64 support

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

and even "little steps" like this are probably a good idea

Pietro Albini (Sep 10 2020 at 14:37, on Zulip):

that's the naming I proposed during the RFC, and I kinda started using it already since people were so much confused when I said target vs host

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

It makes sense now

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

really we should have a checklist of considerations that folks can fill out

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:38, on Zulip):

the way that the "aarch64 tier 1" RFC did...

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

but i'm skimming the draft RFC

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:39, on Zulip):

I guess the real question is whether we have "target maintainers" that will help out with problems

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

but in general I think that's probably :check: and if we find we are having problems we could reconsider

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

(and it's already tier 2 anyway...)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:40, on Zulip):

Which hardware is suitable for running aarch64-musl? Are we talking raspberry pi 4?

Pietro Albini (Sep 10 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

my understanding is, that's just a normal aarch64 linux without glibc

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:41, on Zulip):

let me phrase my question a different way

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

if a volunteer came up and said "I'm interested in helping, but I don't have an ARM system"

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

would you tell them to go buy a Chromebook?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:42, on Zulip):

(probably not)

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

isn't this a problem already? :)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

anyway this is just me musing in response to niko's question about whether we have "target maintainers"

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

all I meant was "is there a group we can ping", but I would love to do a better and better job in that respect

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:43, on Zulip):

(i.e., instructions like "here is how you can test this on your system")

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

I see. I would think the existing arm notification group is probably what I would ping if there were problems here

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

exactly

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

so anyway

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

it seems like there's no stringent objection here to landing this

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

for tier2

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

CI still checks that it builds on each PR merge, right?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:46, on Zulip):

and if so, has T-infra already checked that we have appropriate resources to add a tools build for this target?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

I'm going to assume that they either have or will discuss this

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

so we can move on

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

libs-impl

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

Issues of Note

Short Summary

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:47, on Zulip):

P-critical

T-compiler

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:48, on Zulip):
pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

from looking at the LLVM bug report, it seems like they are still actively investigating it

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:49, on Zulip):

I guess we can wait until we hear more from LLVM

Esteban K├╝ber (Sep 10 2020 at 14:50, on Zulip):

How close to the beta cutoff will we be willing to wait?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

yes that is an important question

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

since this ties into whether we can continue to move forward with LLVM upgrade in place...

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 14:51, on Zulip):

next release happens on Oct 8th

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

I'm debating about whether I can let this wait on my plate until later in September

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:52, on Zulip):

or if I should try to hand off to someone else

Wesley Wiser (Sep 10 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

Do we feel the need to do another crater run if we back out the LLVM upgrade? If we want to do that, we'll additional time before the release date.

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

what would we do about it?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

but really, it seems like the options are either 1. invest time in an LLVM fix, or 2. evaluate a revert of the LLVM 11 upgrade

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

(and that evaluation in (2.) would involve determining which bugs would be (re)injected by such a revert)

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 14:53, on Zulip):

I don't see us doing an LLVM fix (although that's the best option)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

if rr worked on my desktop machine then I'd be more inclined to jump into LLVM

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

I do not think that we need to do another crater run after an llvm revert or patch

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:54, on Zulip):

(but rr does not currently work on AMD Ryzen, unfortunately)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

I think we can let this wait another week

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:55, on Zulip):

its certainly possible the LLVM folks may fix it in the next week

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

given that there is active investigation happening on that linked LLVM bug

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):
Aaron Hill (Sep 10 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

I'm currently running the LLVM testsuite locally

Aaron Hill (Sep 10 2020 at 14:56, on Zulip):

my patch fixes the provided minimization

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:57, on Zulip):

okay. And now @Aaron Hill has self-assigned the issue

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

so I think we can trust that progress is happening there

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):
simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:58, on Zulip):

It still sounds more or less expected, but is certainly unfortunate -- I think the latest is "just inference changes". IIRC someone was looking into it more, I forget who

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

hmm

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

oh, I was thinking of https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/219381-t-libs/topic/array_map.20causing.20errors.20in.20ecosystem

Matthew Jasper (Sep 10 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

Well, the unstable get_unchecked could be renamed?

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 14:59, on Zulip):

never mind

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

This is basically a bug fix?

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

but yes it seems like it would be good to rename this -- especially since we never plan to stabilize it?

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

that is, there was something unstable but it wasn't detected before?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:00, on Zulip):

this surprises me. I guess I've never thought carefully about method resolution in these cases

Matthew Jasper (Sep 10 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

It's a new method on Iterator (I think?)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

(I'm speaking specifically of the MCVE)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:01, on Zulip):

lets definitely rename fn get_unchecked then

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

Yeah, @Matthew Jasper moved it off an extension trait for specialization -> min_specialization I believe

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

oh that may be even better

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

but it makes sense to not use such a popular name for an internal detail

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

if it works

simulacrum (Sep 10 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

just renaming it should be sufficient, I think extension trait doesn't work because of specialization limitations

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:02, on Zulip):

if it's an internal detail, we should do that, but it's definitely suspicious that it was needed and can't be hidden except through stability

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

@Matthew Jasper was there a reason you had to put the method in trait Iterator rather than some other extension trait ?

Matthew Jasper (Sep 10 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

Yes, it's required so that the where clauses on Iterator are available.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:03, on Zulip):

simulacrum said:

just renaming it should be sufficient, I think extension trait doesn't work because of specialization limitations

okay that probably answers my question

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:04, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis said:

if it's an internal detail, we should do that, but it's definitely suspicious that it was needed and can't be hidden except through stability

"suspicious" as in "this is an argument for pub(crate) trait-items ? Or "suspicious" as in "this may be a method resolution bug" ?

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:04, on Zulip):

the former

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:04, on Zulip):

gotcha

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

or maybe more work on specialization :)

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

something

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

okay, so: Lets rename the method to something obscure as a short-term fix

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

and maybe try to bring this up with lang team?

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:05, on Zulip):

(independently)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

not sure if we can prioritize language changes to address this, but I think other members of lang team will at least find the scenario interesting.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

libs-impl

T-rustdoc

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

oh no we are already past the hour. :sad:

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:06, on Zulip):

Unassigned P-high regressions

Beta regressions

Nightly regressions

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

I'm sorry all, I let the earlier items get out of control w.r.t. timing

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:07, on Zulip):

(even after multiple people said we needed to move along)

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

meetings == hard

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:08, on Zulip):

skimming over remaining items (perf analysis and nominations), I don't think anything is too pressing

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

The next steering meeting isn't tomororw, its next week, right?

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

this meeting was going to fail because the agenda was extremely packed anyway, so do not worry :)

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

we may want to discuss if in cases like this we (prioritization wg) need to leave stuff out the agenda preemptively or well add everything and we just cover what we can

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:09, on Zulip):

Okay heres my suggestion

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

tomorrow at the normal steering meeting timeslot

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

I'll plan to have ... call it "open discussion time"

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

since no official meeting was scheduled, we won't call it an official meeting (i.e. we shoudn't make backport decisions or whatnot during it)

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:10, on Zulip):

but it may be a chance to at least synchronously discuss items here that don't require consensus

Wesley Wiser (Sep 10 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

Sounds like a good idea to me! :thumbs_up:

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

(for people who already have the time slot reserved in their schedule, and would like to come)

nikomatsakis (Sep 10 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

oh btw I'll be AFK until Monday starting in an hour or two jfyi... omg that's a lot of acronyms imo let me add a few more.

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

ha ha

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:11, on Zulip):

AFK until Monday is quite a trip down the hallway

pnkfelix (Sep 10 2020 at 15:12, on Zulip):

but yeah, okay, we'll in particular note that @nikomatsakis won't be in attendance tomorrow)

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 15:16, on Zulip):

next week's checkins will be @WG-polonius and WG-polymorphization

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 15:16, on Zulip):

@lqd, @davidtwco giving heads up in case you have something to share

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 10 2020 at 15:16, on Zulip):

feel free to add checkins to next week's agenda https://hackmd.io/KZa0E7ltRASGRFZrx67szw?both

davidtwco (Sep 10 2020 at 15:18, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

lqd, davidtwco giving heads up in case you have something to share

I wrote a update at the weekend, it's probably still going to be accurate for next week - #t-compiler/wg-polymorphization > current status 06/09

pnkfelix (Sep 11 2020 at 14:08, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

I'll plan to have ... call it "open discussion time"

(this will take place in #t-compiler/meetings > [weekly meeting followup] 2020-09-11 #54818 )

lqd (Sep 16 2020 at 14:31, on Zulip):

@Santiago Pastorino I don't think I have the right to edit the agenda hackmd, so here's the wg-polonius check-in https://gist.github.com/lqd/af2e631b22eb778a986bd7ce9e237228 (I'll make sure to update the gist if Niko has time to review it before the meeting)

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 16 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

@lqd give me your HackMD username so I can add you to the HackMD Rust org

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 16 2020 at 14:44, on Zulip):

and then you would be able to edit the agenda

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 16 2020 at 14:45, on Zulip):

by lqd I find two users

lqd (Sep 16 2020 at 15:22, on Zulip):

yeah let me pm you that

lqd (Sep 16 2020 at 16:38, on Zulip):

alright I did add the check-in text to the hackmd, I also took the opportunity to paste @davidtwco's linked update

Last update: Nov 25 2020 at 02:45UTC