Formatting the rust-lang/rust repository

[Centril]

Meeting proposal info

• Title: RFC: Format the rust-lang/rust repository
• Type: it's complicated
• Proposed by: @Centril
• Link: [DRAFT] Format the rust-lang/rust repository Centril/rfcs#21
• Scheduled dates for discussion:
  • Not yet scheduled, we'll add content here when it gets scheduled

About this issue

This issue corresponds to a meeting proposal for the compiler team
steering meeting. It corresponds to a possible topic of
discussion. You can read more about the steering meeting procedure
here.

Comment policy

These issues are meant to be used as an "announcements channel"
regarding the proposal, and not as a place to discuss the technical
details. Feel free to subscribe to updates. We'll post comments when
reviewing the proposal in meetings or making a scheduling decision.
In the meantime, if you have questions or ideas, ping the proposers
on Zulip (or elsewhere).

[eddyb]

@nikomatsakis meta question: should the last two sections of the template be left off?

[nikomatsakis]

We discussed this in our planning meeting today and decided that we do not need to have a meeting for this. We believe there is general agreement to the plan. However, @Mark-Simulacrum wanted to make sure we uncovered anybody who might have a strong objection, therefore I'm doing a poll:

@rfcbot poll Do you generally approve of this plan to format the repository?

[rfcbot]

Team member @nikomatsakis has asked teams: T-compiler, for consensus on:

Do you generally approve of this plan to format the repository?

• @Zoxc
• @cramertj
• @eddyb
• @estebank
• @michaelwoerister
• @nagisa
• @nikomatsakis
• @oli-obk
• @petrochenkov
• @pnkfelix
• @varkor

[nikomatsakis]

I'm going to close this issue -- we didn't feel this needed to be a meeting.

[cramertj]

I actually had a minor question in the meantime: how should we handle the formatting of tests which are testing new syntax that is being introduced in the change, but not yet supported by rustfmt?

[Centril]

@cramertj We can exclude those directories explicitly in some manner (either by not having .enforcefmt in there or by listing paths explicitly).

[Centril]

That actually might be a problem when we use unstable features in the compiler itself... I hope rustfmt handles those gracefully.

[cramertj]

It does not-- it currently fails to format anything if your code doesn't parse as a valid rust file.

[Centril]

@cramertj ah; but does rustfmt handle nightly features at least for some selection of features?

[cramertj]

@Centril it handles some things, but obviously if you've just implemented a feature it wouldn't yet support it.

[Centril]

@cramertj Makes sense; this might be a problem in some instances -- which I guess we can fix with opt-outs in case of emergency -- on the other hand, this might also push us to be better at introducing things to rustfmt quicker, which might be a welcome outcome.

[estebank]

This feels like it would only be a problem when we start using a feature in the compiler itself, not for the tests, and I would argue that having rustfmt support for features that we feel are useful/safe enough for the compiler should be a priority.