@WG-prioritization/alerts issue #81654 has been requested for prioritization.
I would label this T-libs (as the PR), makes sense?
Yep, looks like T-libs to me.
Seems like somewhere between
other crates will encounter this error, though. Looks like it is expected
iiuc the comment is suggesting that all crates should now update their code, am I correct?
Well, I think that's one way of fixing it, but it looks like T-libs may roll back for now if there's too much breakage.
You might want to ask m-ou-se what T-libs's plan is?
I think the point is clear enough by reading that comment; I would feel a bit of "nagging" asking again, esp. on a topic I don't grasp the full implications. I'm inclined to believe they know better than me :)
(but thanks :thumbs_up: for stimulating my thoughts on the matter, I had to think about it a bit)
m-ou-se: We are reverting stabilization of ::BITS for now, until this is solved upstream.
There were issues quickly piling up on this regression so t-libs decided for a quick revert.
Am I right that now issue #81654 is "fixed" and the ball is back to t-libs (I see this this rfc)?
If yes, I would remove the
i-prioritize and close the case (I may be missing something, though)
(meta question) I'm curious where t-libs meetings take place and if there are notes, sometimes it is interesting to check and follow-up on their decisions. after a cursory search I could not find any
Issue #81654's prioritization request has been removed.