Policy: no discussions on T-compiler tracking issues

[oli-obk]

Proposal

Tracking issues frequently become unmanageably large (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3AC-tracking-issue+sort%3Acomments-desc, where 25 issues have 99+ comments and 75 issues have 50+ comments, plus some extreme ones with hundreds of comments). It's a lot of effort to go through those issues and find specific discussion topics. Even if you have direct links to a specific comment, github starts hiding them.

I have started locking some tracking issues by default and asking people to take their discussions to zulip or separate issues. But, I have also made mistakes and suggested that all discussions must happen on zulip and github is only for issues, or forgot to leave a message about why I locked it entirely. And then we have over 700 tracking issues that do not follow this policy at all. Of course for most tracking issues, this never becomes a problem, but it's not clear to me that we can prevent the few for which it does become a problem.

Thus I am proposing to state that tracking issues with the T-compiler or T-lang label should not have discussions on them and any discussions will be deleted. Instead users should open a new github issue with the feature's F- label for specific topics and link back to the main tracking issue.

Mentors or Reviewers

not applicable

Process

The main points of the Major Change Process are as follows:

• File an issue describing the proposal.
• A compiler team member or contributor who is knowledgeable in the area can second by writing @rustbot second.
  • Finding a "second" suffices for internal changes. If however, you are proposing a new public-facing feature, such as a -C flag, then full team check-off is required.
  • Compiler team members can initiate a check-off via @rfcbot fcp merge on either the MCP or the PR.
• Once an MCP is seconded, the Final Comment Period begins. If no objections are raised after 10 days, the MCP is considered approved.

You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.

Comments

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

[rustbot]

This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.

Concerns or objections to the proposal should be discussed on Zulip and formally registered here by adding a comment with the following syntax:

@rustbot concern reason-for-concern 
<description of the concern> 

Concerns can be lifted with:

@rustbot resolve reason-for-concern 

See documentation at https://forge.rust-lang.org

cc @rust-lang/compiler @rust-lang/compiler-contributors

[fmease]

@rustbot second

[apiraino]

@rustbot label -final-comment-period +major-change-accepted

[nikomatsakis]

Big +1 to this.

Also I am amused by the fact that I'm violating the very policy I'm in favor of by leaving this comment. Sue me.