Ha ha. OK, I bumped it to 1.18. Feel free to edit it the predictions yourself!
It might be possible to talk about the improved reference before it’s completely up to date. Like, “in this release the reference is not known to be incorrect”.
Ah, nice! I’ll edit if we make good progress on it. I’m hopeful I’ll finish the tracking issue this weekend and then we can spawn off all the tracking issues. At a minimum we’ll be able to say that we added documentation for RFCs on any given release, which will be great.
My personal goal was just to have this done in 2017! If we get good community contributions, though, we might get there in the next few months. Stretch goal: the 2-year-birthday.
I believe its to make it easier to handle tuples vs structs in macros.
I’d like to see unions https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/32836 in the horizon. It seems especially important for determining the size of ffi foreign objects with unions in them from the rust side.
Thanks @crlf0710. I put it under 1.18.
I changed the 1.18 release date from June 1 to June 8 to be 6 weeks after the 1.17 release date. Let me know if there was a reason it was abbreviated to 5 weeks.
Thanks @dtolnay. Probably just bad math.
@chriskrycho I had no idea you were working on the reference, what sort of progress have you made? This seems like the perfect sort of thing to advertise around to get a bunch of eyes on it, but I’d rather only do that once you think it’s ready.
Depending on person’s background there is a long list of RFC that need the documentation status evaluated. I am happy to merge changes from forks of the gist.
I’ve recently made the following changes:
I’ve added sections to each version in the op for “compatibility notes”.
I hear of minor, intentional regressions often, and am very worried that they are not being tagged on the issue tracker. The op here is a simple place to list these regressions when you come across them, letting us sort the details out for the release notes later. Please keep it in mind.
Someone motivated might watch the beta regressions for those that are closed wontfix and add them to the op with links, or better yet, find the PRs that introduced the changes and tag them ‘relnotes’.
I updated 1.17 to match what’s actually being released. All these things didn’t make it:
deprecate rustc-serialize in 1.18?
I don’t think that’s tied to rustc releases, really.
Seems like rustc-serialize is deprecated right now, for 1.17.
Edit: well, actually there’s no patch to the compiler to deprecate the attribute yet. It’s kinda half-deprecated.
…The linked tracking issue was closed by bors when 40870 was merged. That was three weeks ago. I don’t know exactly how the process works, but shouldn’t that mean that this did make it?
It was merged into
master. Then it has to wait for the next
beta branch (every 6 weeks), and then it’s 6 more weeks to reach
stable. So it can be 6-12 weeks total from merge to stable release, unless someone actively backports it to beta sooner.