-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 287
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
update infrastructure.rst/compilers #1946
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you please keep this as it was? It was agreed upon in a core meeting and I don't want to change it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @beckermr
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes will do. My apologies. Not right this minute though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done. #1947
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We're not in such a rush IMO... I didn't press merge here, I'd be happy to discuss this some more. Aside from a typo ("conpiler"), #1947 is IMO not correct, because that section now explicitly tries to draw a distinction between ABI-breaking and ABI-preserving compiler upgrades, and you made that distinction less clear.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll fix the typo ofc but I'm not gonna split hairs on the language here. Isuru is correct that this language was agreed upon in a core meeting and so should remain unchanged. I mentioned this in the previous pr as well at some point iirc.
Please accept my apologies for merging too early. The pr looked good to go and so I went ahead.
I'm happy to back out the prs or we can continue debate in a new one.
I really appreciate the hard work from you @h-vetinari on this.
One thing I realized is that we don't separate out what is an informal policy from core and what is more general documentation. That is making this process more difficult than it has to be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I disagree with the tenet that something that has been (core-)agreed once is forever unchangeable, especially if circumstances change.
You can back out my PR (or not 🤷); my interest here is not to offend but to provide useful documentation, in particular the distinction between ABI-breaking and not ABI-breaking compiler upgrades1. If that needs a core vote, then that's fine by me, but I wrote this text specifically with that separation in mind. If people don't want that separation, just revert.
👍
Footnotes
as an instance of the latter is what started this when John asked for a docs update ↩