[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Delegate Cargo.toml style guide to style team? #13313

Open
joshtriplett opened this issue Jan 17, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Delegate Cargo.toml style guide to style team? #13313

joshtriplett opened this issue Jan 17, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
disposition-merge FCP with intent to merge proposed-final-comment-period An FCP proposal has started, but not yet signed off. S-triage Status: This issue is waiting on initial triage. T-cargo Team: Cargo

Comments

@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member
joshtriplett commented Jan 17, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@rust-lang/cargo previously discussed the possibility of formatting Cargo.toml. There are open questions around that, such as whether rustfmt or cargo fmt is responsible for doing the formatting.

This issue is to determine who has the responsibility for writing and maintaining the style guide for Cargo.toml. The old style team (years ago) did write a style guide for Cargo.toml manifests, but there was never any automated tooling to format manifests according to that style, so we don't want to presume that that style is well-established.

When this came up previously, cargo had at least one concern with the current style guidance, which I'm addressing with this PR: rust-lang/rust#120072 . Currently reviewing other potential concerns, and will post fixes for those as well, before the style guide gets used for any form of automatic formatting.

With my Cargo team hat on, I would propose that the Cargo team delegate responsibility for bikeshedding writing and maintaining the style guide for Cargo.toml manifest to the style team, with the understanding that:

  • The Cargo team can always raise objections if there's style guidance they have concerns with
  • The Cargo team can withdraw the delegation if they have unresolved concerns with how that work is being done
@joshtriplett joshtriplett added T-cargo Team: Cargo I-nominated-to-discuss To be discussed during issue triage on the next Cargo team meeting labels Jan 17, 2024
@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member Author

Starting an FCP for this, but also nominating it so that we can discuss it in our next meeting.

@rfcbot merge

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator
rfcbot commented Jan 17, 2024 •
edited by Eh2406
Loading

Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

Concerns:

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.

@rfcbot rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period An FCP proposal has started, but not yet signed off. disposition-merge FCP with intent to merge labels Jan 17, 2024
@epage
Copy link
Contributor
epage commented Jan 17, 2024

@rfcbot concern verify

This seems to almost complete delegate ownership. I think I would feel more comfortable delegating the task of definition, setting parameters and having a final T-cargo FCP, and as we get things settled, moving on to the more complete delegation mentioned here.

@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member Author

@epage So, the initial delegation would be "update the style guide to address all of T-cargo's concerns and we'll review it, FCP it, and consider delegating ongoing maintenance at that time"?

@epage
Copy link
Contributor
epage commented Jan 17, 2024

Thats roughly my thought. Not required we go that way but just a little concerned with the fact that the previous style guide had no teeth (no rustfmt) and had weird suggestions that ran counter to community norms so it seems like it'd be good to be more in the loop so we make sure we start in the right direction with a style guide that is getting teeth.

@calebcartwright calebcartwright mentioned this issue Jan 18, 2024
Open
@ehuss ehuss moved this to FCP blocked in Cargo status tracker Jan 23, 2024
@ehuss ehuss moved this from FCP blocked to Nominated in Cargo status tracker Jan 23, 2024
@ehuss ehuss moved this from Nominated to FCP blocked in Cargo status tracker Jan 30, 2024
@ehuss ehuss moved this from FCP blocked to Nominated in Cargo status tracker Jan 30, 2024
@ehuss ehuss removed the I-nominated-to-discuss To be discussed during issue triage on the next Cargo team meeting label Jan 30, 2024
@ehuss ehuss moved this from Nominated to FCP blocked in Cargo status tracker Jan 30, 2024
@epage epage added the S-triage Status: This issue is waiting on initial triage. label Nov 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
disposition-merge FCP with intent to merge proposed-final-comment-period An FCP proposal has started, but not yet signed off. S-triage Status: This issue is waiting on initial triage. T-cargo Team: Cargo
Projects
Cargo status tracker
Status: FCP blocked
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@ehuss @epage @joshtriplett @rfcbot