docs(charter): Declare new Intentional Artifacts as 'small' changes #14599
Conversation
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
That means these will only need an FCP to take ownership, including updating the charter, rather than an RFC.
|
r? @weihanglo rustbot has assigned @weihanglo. Use |
rustbot
added
A-documenting-cargo-itself
|
@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. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
weihanglo
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2024
ehuss
reviewed
Sep 28, 2024
rfcbot
added
the
final-comment-period
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
rfcbot
removed
the
proposed-final-comment-period
epage
force-pushed
the
charter
branch
3 times, most recently
from
7ab0916
to
c08b437
Compare
|
As this one is not too controversial, going to merge this. Thanks! @bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 1, 2024
docs(charter): Declare new Intentional Artifacts as 'small' changes ### What does this PR try to resolve? The default stance for new "Intentional Artifact" crates is that an RFC is needed, see [Crate ownership policy](https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/crate-ownership.html). However, it gives room for team's to have their charter define the process. As we don't generally need wide input for these decisions, I'm proposing we treat these as "small" changes and only require an FCP. ### How should we test and review this PR? ### Additional information
|
💥 Test timed out |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry |
bors
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 5, 2024
Update cargo 17 commits in 80d82ca22abbee5fb7b51fa1abeb1ae34e99e88a..ad074abe3a18ce8444c06f962ceecfd056acfc73 2024-09-27 17:56:01 +0000 to 2024-10-04 18:18:15 +0000 - test: Remove the last of our custom json assertions (rust-lang/cargo#14576) - docs(ref): Expand on MSRV (rust-lang/cargo#14636) - docs: Minor re-grouping of pages (rust-lang/cargo#14620) - docs(ref): Highleft whats left for msrv-policy (rust-lang/cargo#14638) - Fix `cargo:version_number` - has only one `:` (rust-lang/cargo#14637) - docs: Declare support level for each crate in our Charter / docs (rust-lang/cargo#14600) - chore(deps): update tar to 0.4.42 (rust-lang/cargo#14632) - docs(charter): Declare new Intentional Artifacts as 'small' changes (rust-lang/cargo#14599) - fix: Remove implicit feature removal (rust-lang/cargo#14630) - docs(config): make `--config <PATH>` more prominent (rust-lang/cargo#14631) - chore(deps): update rust crate unicode-width to 0.2.0 (rust-lang/cargo#14624) - chore(deps): update embarkstudios/cargo-deny-action action to v2 (rust-lang/cargo#14628) - docs(ref): Clean up language for `package.rust-version` (rust-lang/cargo#14619) - docs: clarify `target.'cfg(...)'` doesnt respect cfg from build script (rust-lang/cargo#14312) - test: relax compiler panic assertions (rust-lang/cargo#14618) - refactor(compiler): zero-copy deserialization when possible (rust-lang/cargo#14608) - test: add support for features in the sat resolver (rust-lang/cargo#14583)
rfcbot
added
finished-final-comment-period
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
What does this PR try to resolve?
The default stance for new "Intentional Artifact" crates is that an RFC is needed, see Crate ownership policy.
However, it gives room for team's to have their charter define the process. As we don't generally need wide input for these decisions, I'm proposing we treat these as "small" changes and only require an FCP.
How should we test and review this PR?
Additional information