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.

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

Anomalous unstable feature annotations #28037

Closed
durka opened this issue Aug 27, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Anomalous unstable feature annotations #28037

durka opened this issue Aug 27, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@durka
Copy link
Contributor

durka commented Aug 27, 2015

After submitting #28031, I ran a script on the rest of src/ and I found several feature annotations that seem anomalous. A few I thought were obvious and I submitted another PR #28038.

This short list contains the ones that I'm not sure about -- either features that reference issue 0, or where the feature name is inconsistent with other annotations referencing the same issue.

I skipped any feature names containing the word "internals", and a few other clear false positives, because I figure those are never meant to be stabilized, so they are allowed to reference issue 0.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Yeah issue 0 == "this probably won't ever be stabilized", and FnBox currently falls into that category (it's just a stopgap for now). Otherwise we don't require issues on deprecated features (as the decision on that feature is already made).

Finally, the feature names specific are a bit nebulous but it's not intended that all features pointing at the same issue have the exact same feature name. We still want the ability to move things around and stabilize subsets if possible.

For now I believe these are all intentional, though, so closing, but thanks for doing the audit!

@durka
Copy link
Contributor Author

durka commented Aug 27, 2015

@alexcrichton I re-ran the audit checking for #![unstable(...)] and I found two more:

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Ah it's ok for those two as they're both deprecated at this point, so they won't need a tracking issue

@durka
Copy link
Contributor Author

durka commented Aug 27, 2015

All right, that's what I figured even though I didn't see a deprecation annotation. The EnumSet one is a bit confusing, because you can come across it in the docs and it sounds like it's awaiting stabilization, but it's just a relic I guess. Thanks for putting up with my nitpicking!

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Oh no problem, thanks for the thorough investigation!

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 28, 2015
After submitting #28031, I ran a [script](https://gist.github.com/durka/a5243440697c780f669b) on the rest of src/ and found some anomalies. In this PR are the fixes that I thought were obvious (but I might be wrong!). The others I've submitted in issue #28037.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants