Skip to content

Conversation

@cuviper
Copy link
Member

@cuviper cuviper commented Dec 4, 2025

cc @rust-lang/release
r? @BoxyUwU

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-release Relevant to the release subteam, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 4, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 4, 2025

BoxyUwU is currently at their maximum review capacity.
They may take a while to respond.

@cuviper
Copy link
Member Author

cuviper commented Dec 4, 2025

@rustbot ping relnotes-interest-group

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 4, 2025

Hi relnotes-interest-group, this issue/PR could use some help in reviewing /
adjusting release notes. Could you take a look if available? Thanks <3

cc @alex-semenyuk @jieyouxu @joshtriplett @Kobzol @lcnr @traviscross

@Kivooeo
Copy link
Member

Kivooeo commented Dec 4, 2025

Hi, sorry for being late with this

I wanted to ask about Release Notes for this change (#146810). We discussed this briefly on #t-compiler > Determining if a change needs release notes, but I’m still not completely sure whether they are required in my case. If they are needed, do I still have time to add them?

@cuviper
Copy link
Member Author

cuviper commented Dec 4, 2025

@Kivooeo that change is already included, but you can still suggest edits here, even removing that line if you don't think it deserves mention.

@Kivooeo
Copy link
Member

Kivooeo commented Dec 4, 2025

I meant a release blog section like here #147383

Because I still unsure about what changes require them

If this change is notable enough for inclusion in the blog post then this section should be edited to contain a draft for the blog post. Otherwise leave it empty.

This line is not clear enough to me, how can I understand if change is "notable enough"

@cuviper
Copy link
Member Author

cuviper commented Dec 4, 2025

Ah, the blog is much more subjective -- there's no real requirement, but it's essentially a judgement call about how many people may care about the change. @BoxyUwU is handling that in rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org#1757.

Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, one tiny nit

View changes since this review

Comment on lines +59 to +60
- [`<[_]>::rotate_left`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/primitive.slice.html#method.rotate_left)
- [`<[_]>::rotate_right`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/primitive.slice.html#method.rotate_right)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Remark: maybe [T]::{rotate_left,rotate_right} but meh

Compatibility Notes
-------------------
* [Fix backtraces with `-C panic=abort` on Linux by generating unwind tables by default](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143613). Build with `-C force-unwind-tables=no` to keep omitting unwind tables.
- As part of the larger effort refactoring compiler built-in attributes and their diagnostics, [The future-compatibility lint `invalid_macro_export_arguments` is upgraded to deny-by-default and will be reported in dependencies too.](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143857)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit:

Suggested change
- As part of the larger effort refactoring compiler built-in attributes and their diagnostics, [The future-compatibility lint `invalid_macro_export_arguments` is upgraded to deny-by-default and will be reported in dependencies too.](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143857)
- As part of the larger effort refactoring compiler built-in attributes and their diagnostics, [the future-compatibility lint `invalid_macro_export_arguments` is upgraded to deny-by-default and will be reported in dependencies too.](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143857)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-release Relevant to the release subteam, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants