-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
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
RFC: Unblock Cargo feature metadata #3416
RFC: Unblock Cargo feature metadata #3416
Conversation
Whoops, didn't mean to accidentally close. Anyway, I've finished filling out all the sections and I think this is ready enough for review. I'll mark it as such and ping the related issues to see if anyone has feedback to drop here. |
rustdoc
configurationrustdoc
configuration
Please note that the crate |
The crate is listed under the prior art section, and it also as future possibilities to support some sort of syntax like that. I do think it's a good idea to start with a |
I'd like to replace SNAFU's documentation page for feature flags with something more automated. From that perspective, I'm not seeing this RFC describe what rustdoc is going to do with the information, how it will consumed by human beings, etc. |
@jsha mentioned a few possibilities on zulip for what to do with this information:
Any of which make sense to me. The page you linked looks quite nice to me, and could serve as a good example for what rustdoc might do, and also brings up a good point that links to features should be expected to work (I will update the RFC later with notes on this) I don't know whether the exact output of rustdoc should be within the scope of this RFC, just because that's likely open to more bikeshedding and will just need some trial/error of what looks good. So when I update the RFC I'll just add some open wording like the below, if that seems reasonable
|
Thanks for waking this up @kornelski, kept falling off my todo list. @epage I split this RFC into three as we had discussed, see the top post links. I also added you as a collaborator to my RFC repo if you want to go ahead and adjust any of the structure https://github.com/tgross35/rfcs |
@tgross35 I hope my direct edits are ok and aligned with what you are wanting here. I was trying to do some basic clean up and capturing of Cargo team discussions on this RFC. Thank you for splitting up the RFCs as this made today's discussions much easier! As for when to stabilize this, we were a bit undecided. Waiting until something needs this gives us more time for evaluating this. However, stabilizing this ASAP means we can more easily avoid MSRV bumps. @rfcbot fcp merge |
Team member @epage has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
Very much so, thank you for moving this along! |
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. This will be merged soon. |
Congrats! The @rust-lang/cargo team has decided to accept this RFC. To track further discussion, subscribe to the tracking issue here: |
NOTE: At @epage's suggestion I split this into three different RFCs:
I will leave this one open as a meta RFC for now
Rendered
RFC for
feature-metadata
RFC goals: add a way to write feature descriptions and other feature configuration in
Cargo.toml
. #3421 will provide a way forrustdoc
to use that information.Zulip discussion: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-rustdoc/topic/Descriptions.20for.20feature.20flags
This would resolve:
The following were deferred out: