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

Update TRPL/Installing Rust to avoid concrete version numbers #28817

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2015

Conversation

dcarral
Copy link
Contributor

@dcarral dcarral commented Oct 2, 2015

Update "Installing Rust" section @ TRPL so it references the last stable version, v1.3.0.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nikomatsakis (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Thanks! The problem here is that master is currently 1.5, so this is going to introduce a bug :) Would you mind updating it for that, please?

(and there's a problem here, that we don't know what the actual date/hash is going to be, and can't...)

@leoyvens
Copy link
Contributor

leoyvens commented Oct 3, 2015

This should be part of the release process?

@dcarral
Copy link
Contributor Author

dcarral commented Oct 3, 2015

Thanks for the prompt review Steve ;)

I don't agree in updating it to v1.5 (even if we'd be able to know the date/hash). I mean, currently, when readers follow the installation instructions indicated in the book, they end up with the current stable release, which is v1.3.0. Therefore I think it makes complete sense to update the text to v1.3.0 then.

Obviously, once the next version is released, the text should be updated again. If this could be part of the release process, as @leodasvacas points out, there won't be the need for manual updates ;)

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

@dcarrell if this PR is merged right now, due to the way the release process works, 1.5 is the first release this patch will be in. 1.3 is already out, and 1.4 has already been forked for beta, and we very, very rarely do documentation back ports.

@leodasvacas we can't know the git hash before this text is written, because the content of the text is involved creating the hash... Know what I mean? This text was always supposed to be "it should look like this" not "it should be exactly this" for this reason.

@dcarral
Copy link
Contributor Author

dcarral commented Oct 3, 2015

That makes complete sense Steve. I (naively) thought that the book showed the contents present in the master branch.

Thanks for the info then and obviously feel free to safely close this PR.

@leoyvens
Copy link
Contributor

leoyvens commented Oct 3, 2015

@steveklabnik I see. But keeping the version number up to date would be good.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Right. There's certainly a pain point here, I'm just not sure how best to handle it. Do either of you have thoughts? Can we use vaguer wording here, or maybe just elide the exact hash?

No need to close the PR, we can just update it :)

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 3, 2015

IMO 1.3 is more correct so its better than what we've got, but we can prob do better. Getting the hash for the stable release in the stable docs isn't possible without moving docs out of tree (which we might ought consider).

I think a reasonable compromise would be to write 1.5 and ellide the hash.

@leoyvens
Copy link
Contributor

leoyvens commented Oct 3, 2015

Referring to an old version gives an undeserved impression that the document is out-of-date. Also the example is less reassuring if it dosen't match exactly what is shown. Maybe it's best to remove the example and just say You should see the version number, commit hash, and commit date. If you do, Rust has been installed successfully! Congrats!. Even a novice user will be able to tell the correct message from an error message.

@dcarral
Copy link
Contributor Author

dcarral commented Oct 6, 2015

The option which I like the most is what @leodasvacas has proposed (remove the example and just include a vaguer wording), for the exact reasons he's pointed out.

@steveklabnik, @brson: Do you like the proposed wording or have any other inputs?

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

I like it.

@dcarral dcarral changed the title Update TRPL/Installing Rust to reflect current v1.3.0 Update TRPL/Installing Rust to avoid concrete version numbers Oct 6, 2015
@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

r=me, fwiw, but I'm happy to wait till @brson chimes in.

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

I'm also happy, but would like to r? @brson

@rust-highfive rust-highfive assigned brson and unassigned nikomatsakis Oct 7, 2015
@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 8, 2015

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 8, 2015

📌 Commit f5a653e has been approved by brson

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 8, 2015

@bors rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 9, 2015

⌛ Testing commit f5a653e with merge a03e0ee...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 9, 2015
Update "Installing Rust" section @ TRPL so it references the last stable version, v1.3.0.
@bors bors merged commit f5a653e into rust-lang:master Oct 9, 2015
@bors bors mentioned this pull request Oct 9, 2015
@dcarral dcarral deleted the installing_rust_v130 branch October 14, 2015 15:01
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants