Revert "Mention style for new syntax in tracking issue template"#139444
Closed
fee1-dead wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Closed
Revert "Mention style for new syntax in tracking issue template"#139444fee1-dead wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
fee1-dead wants to merge 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
This backs out commit 23a5c0a.
fee1-dead
added
the
I-lang-nominated
Collaborator
|
rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum. Use |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Member
Author
|
Closing, as I got clarification from the thread linked. |
apiraino
removed
the
I-lang-nominated
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
As per #t-lang > style specification as a blocker for stabilization @ 💬, I believe we should stop making style guide a requirement for stabilizing new syntax features such as #132833. The previous decision on this was based on the assumption that the style team had a reasonable bandwidth to do this without significant time lags. This is not the case now.
Open to other suggestions such as placing this bullet point after the stabilization PR and/or requiring an issue created on the style team's repo just to get into their radar, i.e. have some form of the existing process but still stop it from being a strict requirement.