Stream: t-compiler/wg-prioritization/alerts

Topic: I-prioritize #76399 Breaking behavior change for TokenStrea…


triagebot (Sep 06 2020 at 03:58, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization/alerts issue #76399 has been requested for prioritization.

Procedure

apiraino (Sep 06 2020 at 16:58, on Zulip):

This looks like to be a fresh regression that immediately impacted some actual code. I'd say P-high (or above?) to bring it to attention to the next meeting. Makes sense?

LeSeulArtichaut (Sep 06 2020 at 18:07, on Zulip):

I don't know which behavior above is correct but I would like it to be intentionally decided so that we know what behavior to implement in proc-macro2.

I think this indeed deserves I-nominated.

This breaks some real-world code such as the following, though only with old versions of some libraries as far as I have found.

Even if it breaks only old versions of libraries I think we can afford a P-high or P-critical given that this behaviour was probably not intended in #76285

DPC (Sep 07 2020 at 23:06, on Zulip):

marking this as p-critical

triagebot (Sep 07 2020 at 23:06, on Zulip):

Issue #76399's prioritization request has been removed.

LeSeulArtichaut (Sep 08 2020 at 05:04, on Zulip):

Does I-nominated make sense? @apiraino @DPC

apiraino (Sep 08 2020 at 12:27, on Zulip):

I agree. The issue reporter asks for an opinion that requires a bit more context

DPC (Sep 08 2020 at 12:43, on Zulip):

Critical issues do get discussed at the compiler meeting

apiraino (Sep 08 2020 at 12:47, on Zulip):

ah ok so in this case it would be redundant? I-nominated makes more sense on lower priority issues that we want anyway to be discussed, correct?

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 19:23, on Zulip):

P-critical and I-nominated at the same time are somewhat redundant yeah

Santiago Pastorino (Sep 09 2020 at 19:23, on Zulip):

still valid I think :)

Last update: Apr 10 2021 at 22:00UTC