stable backport PR 52232

[pnkfelix]

This is a dummy issue linking to PR #52232 so that we can have an open issue (which is apparently a requirement if one wants to leverage the rfcbot).

[pnkfelix]

@rfcbot fcp merge

I propose that we approve backporting #52232 to stable.

I'm more wary of stable backports than I am of beta backports, so: I am not inverting the rfcbot on this ticket the same way that I did on #52311. If we do not get a sufficient number of check boxes ticked off, then the PR will not be approved for a backport to the stable channel.

[rfcbot]

Team member @pnkfelix has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

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

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[nagisa]

@rfcbot reviewed

I find it kind of objectionable that we’ll end up releasing not one but two point releases this cycle…

[pietroalbini]

By the way, isn't the core team responsible for approving point releases?

[Mark-Simulacrum]

The core team also discussed this today and we're generally in favor of a 1.27.2 release, scheduled for next Thursday. I will be creating and cross-linking an internals post to this thread after the next nightly release asking for interested users to test and try to find holes in the fix (and, probably, match ergonomics in general) with the goal of finding problems before the point release.

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔