►
From YouTube: 2021-01-26 Lang Team Triage Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
We
would
like
to
use
the
first
design
meeting
of
every
month
to
do
two
things
first,
to
schedule
remaining
design
meetings
for
the
rest
of
the
month
and,
secondly,
to
do
the
check-ins
with
different
project
groups
and
kind
of
get
a
brief
overview
of
where
people
at
what
I
was
thinking
is
that,
on,
like
friday
or
the
week
before,
we
would
ping
people
who
are
sort
of
the
leads
or
what
or
what
have
you
of
the
various
project
groups
and
ask
them
to
post
updates
and
we'll
scrape
the
update,
actually
look
over
them
during
the
actual
meeting,
and
I
would
say
the
only
other
thing
I
would
add
is
that
I
think
when
we
schedule
a
design
meeting,
we
should
probably
try
to
make
a
an
expectation
that
the
that
there
will
be
some
sort
of
design
meeting
document
with
a
simple
template.
A
And
then
we
were
just
discussing
various
ideas
to
change
the
script.
I've
been
meaning
to
do
some
hacking
on
the
the
script
myself.
If
nothing
else,
I
want
to
change
the
formatting
I'd
be
up
for
trying
a
different
sort
order.
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion
about
it,
so
I
kind
of
think
it
would
be
good.
A
Maybe
there's
another
tag
missing
or
something
I
don't
know
like
nominated
still
seems
right,
but
there
are
these
issues
that
sort
of
linger,
and
probably
that's
good,
though,
because
we
should
just
I
would
sort
of
prefer
if
we
just
make
try
harder
to
really
get
to
the
point
where
we
can
nominate
things
and
if
that's
an
issue,
I
think
the
one
thing
we're
sort
of
missing
that
we
don't
have
is
a
way
to
un-nominate,
but
have
something
kind
of
sleep
for
a
time
and
then
get
re-raised
if
nothing's
happened,
but.
A
A
Speaking
of
things
that
we
should
try
to
get
done.
There
are
two
pending
proposals
and
my
goal
with
these
was
that
proposals
don't
pen
for
very
long.
So
I
really
like
it
if
we
could
kind
of
figure
out
next
steps
and
get
this
get
these
get
these
off
our
queue.
The
first
one
is
this:
stop
ignoring
trailing
semicolons
in
a
macro
body
when
a
macro
is
invoked
in
expression
position.
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
Scott,
do
you
want
to
follow
up
with
them
and
see
if
they,
if
they
want
to
sure
I
can.
A
A
A
A
Well,
why
don't
we
ping
them
and
if
they
don't
respond
by
next
week,
we'll
close
it
and
encourage
them
to
reopen
if,
if
they
are
back
around
how's,
that
sound.
A
A
B
A
C
A
B
A
Yeah,
that's
how
I'm
thinking
about
it
ryan.
Do
you
have
any
comments
to
make
on
this
rc
like
you're,
I
see
you're
in
the
meeting
now
so.
C
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
people
necessarily
want
me
to
talk
about
the
challenges
around
it,
but
I
just
real
quick.
The
big
issue
is
not
necessarily
whether
it's
a
good
idea
or
not,
because
I
think
it
will
be
relatively
uncontroversial
whether
this
is
a
good
idea.
C
It's
it's
the
timeline
for
what
should
be
done
in
rus,
2021
versus
rust
2024..
Should
we
go
for
the
whole
shebang
here
and
rest
2021
or
try
and
do
a
more
gradual
transition
in
in
russ,
2021
and
then
finishing
in
russ
2024.
A
C
So
the
reason
that
I
think
it
that
it's
relevant
for
the
length
team
is
that
I
think
that
having
a
intermediate
step
at
russ
2021,
where
it's
not
completely
done,
could
potentially
lead
to
some
awkward
semantics
for
the
for
the
2021
edition,
and
I
think
that
that's
something
that
the
leg
team
would
be
interested
in
and
figuring
out.
Is
there
a
an
intermediate
step
that
causes?
B
One
thing
worth
noting
is
that
I
don't
think
there's
any
proposal
here
to
have
an
intermediate
state
that
applies
only
to
the
latest
edition.
I
don't
think
that
there
would
be
three
different
behaviors
here
old,
current
and
next
edition.
B
The
pub
macro
rules
and
pub
crate
macro
rules
and
pub
self
macro
rules
would
all
exist
in
any
edition
and
then
the
only
thing
that
needs
to
be
tied
to
an
addition
is
at
what
point.
Do
we
make
macro
rules
by
itself?
Just
mean
pub
self
macro
rules
and
behave
as
the
same
scoping.
B
A
Right
I
was
going
to
ask
about
that,
but
I
guess
the
question
at
hand
as
I
would
phrase
it
is.
Do
we
want
to
expose
the
intermediate
so
there's
there's
the
two
semantics
right.
There's
there's
like
macro
rules
behaves
like
any
other
item
which
would
be
either
21
or
24
and
requires
migration
and
then
there's
macro
rules
with
pub
behaves
like
any
other
item.
A
So
and
the
question
it
seems
to
me
is:
do
we
want
to
expose
the
latter
if
the
former
doesn't
exist?
Yet
I
think
that's
what
ryan's
asking
right,
yeah.
B
B
A
A
Okay,
thanks
ryan:
let's
keep
moving
for
now
we'll
circle
back
into
later.
On
so
p
high
issues
regression
1.5
deny
after
forbids
build.
This
has
got
a
pending
fcp
to
close.
A
I
yes
we're
still
waiting
on
either
me
taylor
or
boats
to
check.
I
wasn't
here
for
the
meeting
where
we
discussed
this.
A
E
E
D
There,
what
I
was
attempting
to
say
in
the
1.50
regression
issue
is
that
this
isn't
like
a
blocking
issue
for
the
1.50
release.
But
I
agree
that
there's
a
bunch
of
updates
that
might
make
sense
like
allowing
denies
inside
for
bids.
E
A
A
D
D
I
I
think
my
position
on
the
general
issue
is
that
4
1.50.
This
is
basically
caused
by
four
bit
warnings
which
people
should
just
be
doing
deny
warnings
instead
and
that's
okay
for
1.50.
D
E
Have
not
must
have
see
to
me
the
the
my
problem
with
that
assertion.
Is
that
I'm?
I
understand
the
idea
that
forbid
warnings
is
an
empty
pattern,
but
I
find
it
quite
surprising,
like
and
using
forbid
warnings
and
then,
if
I
use
deny
elsewhere
in
my
code
base,
I
I
deserve
what
I
get
there
right
in
terms
of
like
yeah
that
used
to
work,
but
now
it's
not
going
to
work
right,
I'm
totally
on
board.
For
that
and
say
you
should
have
used,
you
should
not
have
used
perfect
warning.
E
E
A
D
A
A
So
what
happens,
is
people
in
derived
generate
allows
because
these
stylistic
lens
shouldn't
be
firing,
but
they
are
so
they
suppress
them
and
then
the
allows
conflict
with
the
forbid.
Not
not
a
deny
right.
A
E
A
C
E
My
question
my
question's
pretty
it
might
be
silly.
I
don't
know
in
eight
zero,
nine,
eight
eight
you
produce
the
minimized
example
where
it
had
deny
after
per
bid-
and
you
pointed
out
the
connection
here
to
derive-
and
my
question
is:
did
you
encounter
a
derived
that
actually
was
gener
generating
as
far
as
part
of
its
generated
code,
it
was
injecting
deny
attributes.
C
No,
no,
I
think
the
point
about
derive
was
some
weird
occurrence
that
you
can
see
inside
of
the
actual
crater
breakage
that
we
had.
That
was
somewhat
orthogonal
to
the
the
question
of
forbid.
C
A
A
A
A
And
at
least
a
warning
in
macro
generated
code
or
maybe
just
suppressed,
I
don't
think
it
should
actually
like.
I
think
that
the
lin
should
still
be
forbidden,
but
but
we
could
do
that
and
if
we
did
that,
plus
we
s
suppress
the
lint
suppress
stylistic
lints
in
macro
generated
code,
then
we
made
those
two
changes.
Then
we
would
actually
get
this
code
compiling
again
without
anybody
doing
any
changes.
B
A
That's
not
what
I
actually
said,
though,
what
I
was
saying
is
for
in
allow,
if
there's
an
allow
inside
of
a
forbid
that
doesn't
have
to
be
an
error.
We
can
just
ignore
the
allow
we
could
do
an
error
or
a
warning,
or
you
know
we
should
do
something,
but
in
particular
in
macro
generated
code.
A
We
might
just
suppress
it
or
give
only
a
warning,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
then
this
code
continues
to
work,
but
also
because
I
guess
I
would
say
it
not
only
that
it
continues
to
work,
but
that
it
it
feels
correct
to
me
that
macros
should
be
able
to
put
allows.
A
A
D
A
Or
that
we
issue
a
warning,
if
you
try
when
something
is
forbidden,
we
issue
a
warning,
but
otherwise
ignore
attempts
to
set
the
lint
level
and
then,
of
course
the
lint
may
trigger
like
because
it
may
trigger,
and
in
that
case
it
would
be
forbidden
just
like
it
would
have
been.
B
That's
interesting:
we
could
even
have
that
itself
be
a
lint
which,
if
you
wanted
to.
C
E
E
When
forbid
warnings
is
on,
but
I'm
assuming
these
are
warnings
that
still
would
be
admitted
it
would
not
cause
a.
A
D
E
B
Term,
it
would
be
nice
if,
if
we're
going
to
suppress
certain
warnings
inside
of
macros,
if
we
only
suppressed
those
for
uses
of
a
macro
that
are
not
in
the
same
crate
that
defined
the
macro,
so
that,
if
you're,
you
would
actually
be
able
to
see
warnings
for
the
macros
that
you're
currently
writing
and
testing.
E
Yeah
we
definitely
there
was
someone
I
think
at
the
last
meeting.
It
was
mark,
but
you
know
pointed
out
that
macro
authors
do
want
to
see
these
warnings,
for
whatever
reason
some
macro
authors
do
care
about
unused
parents,
for
example.
I
don't
understand
it
but
fine,
and
so
that
you
know
I
want
to
respect
those
people's
wishes
and
not
just
blindly
ignore
all
stylistic
things,
but.
D
E
A
I
guess
an
example
of
something
a
use
case.
That's
in
the
back
of
my
mind,
is
you
want?
You
have
some
macro
that
conditionally
generates
like
whatever
it
is
a
warning.
You
know
in
some
use
patterns,
let's
say
it's
unsafe
code
or
something
and
you,
but
not
always,
and
the
macro
has
allow
unsafe
code
on
it
because
it's
supposed
to
be
sort
of
hidden,
but
you
have
forbid
unsafe
code
in
your
crate.
A
B
B
That's
what
I'm
saying
if
we
can
generate
that
behavior
in
a
timely
fashion,
for
dealing
with
this.
B
It
seems
like
part
of
the
goal
here
is
trying
to
solve
the
this
widespread
issue
that
people
are
going
to
see
with
if
they're,
using
forbid.
E
So,
in
terms
of
short-term
solutions,
I
mean
it
sounds
like
just
making
lint
level
changes
in
the
context
of
forbid
make
them
things
that
we
allow
people
to
change
levels,
but
we
ignore
them.
There
are
no
ops,
apart
from
some
diagnostic
being
emitted
that
won't
be
forbidden,
for
you
know,
by
whatever
means
and
have
the
and
still
have
the
actual
occurrences
of
the
thing
cause
the
relevant
lint
fire,
because
the
forbid
all
that
sounds
to
me
like
it
should
be
one
readily
implementable
and
beta
back
portable
and
two
should
resolve.
E
A
D
E
D
E
E
D
B
A
D
E
A
D
A
The
simplest
move
to
make
right
now
is
to
special
case
forbid
warnings
and
say,
like
future
compatibility
warning
and
we
move
to.
We
treat
it
as
if
it
were
as
if
it
were
deny
warnings
followed.
A
Yeah
that
would
have
to
be
exempted.
That's
so
annoying.
I
don't
know
how
we
manage
that,
but
yeah
okay,
sure,
except
for
the
future
compat
previously
listed
future
compatibility.
Sure
if
we're
special
casing,
we
can
do
that
too
right,
yeah
and
and
then
in
the
issue.
You
know
in
the
tracking
issue
that
we
direct
people
to.
D
A
B
A
It's
also
worth
pointing
out
that,
even
when
we
do
finish
this
future
compatibility
transition,
we
might
want
to
keep
this
warning.
Like
yeah
saying
forbid,
warnings
is
not
recommended
because
it's
try
deny
warnings.
A
We
may
I
agree,
but
I'd
rather
I'd
rather
do
this
now
it
seems
pretty
easy
and
painless.
A
Felix
who's
going
to
make
this
happen.
E
I
I
can
make
it
happen.
I
want
to
just
I'm
volunteering
to
make
it
happen.
I
wanted
to
ask
if
anybody
would
object
to
me
doing
it
for
all
in
groups
and
not
just
warnings,
depending
on
what
I
mean
it
sounds
like
people
are
okay
with
it
being
just
warnings,
and
maybe
that's
the
easiest
thing
to
do.
I
don't
know
yet,
but
if
it's
I.
A
C
E
E
B
What
I'm
suggesting
is
hypothetically,
if
we
turned
unsafe
code
into
a
lint
group,
because
we
divided
it
into
three
different
sub
links
that
you
can
individually
enable
disable
and
still
had
that
as
a
top
level
link
group
forbid,
unsafe
code
should
still
forbid
it
and
not
just
deny
it.
A
A
D
Procedurally,
do
I
change
my
ass?
Do
I
change
the
fcp?
Do
we
put
a
concern
in
for
the
change
that
felix
is
going
to
make.
E
A
I
I
think
you
should
cancel
the
fcp,
and
we
should
close
this
with
the
pr
that
felix
opens.
A
Okay,
so
I
should
make
these
grappables
shouldn't
they:
okay,
nominated
prs,
tracking
issue
or
patterns.
There
is
wait,
I'm
going
in
the
wrong
place.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out.
I
don't
think
we
have
to
talk
about
this
in
detail.
There's
a
pending
stabilization
pr,
there's
an
in-progress
stabilization
report.
A
A
A
There's
yeah
it's
like
almost
done,
it
might
even
be
done.
I
don't
know
it's
got
a
few
to
do's,
but
it's
not
clear
that
they
actually
need
content
in
them.
A
Cool,
okay,
there's
a
concern
raised
all
right.
What's
this,
I
don't
know,
what's
the
story
with
this,
do
we
care
about
this
josh?
You
wrote
this
right,
something
about
leading
orrs.
B
Yes,
petra
chinkov
raised
the
original
point,
that
why
is
it
that
we
have
so
many
different
variations
of
patterns?
And
I
think
the
original
reason
in
this
context
was
that
or
the
leading
or
was
sufficiently
controversial,
that
we
just
didn't
include
it
in
this
context,
because
it
helped
to
lower
the
amount
of
bike
shedding.
But
that
said,
I
personally
agree
with
what
petra
chinkov
is
suggesting
here,
which
is
that
anywhere
we
allow
four
patterns.
We
should
also
allow
leading
vert.
A
Maybe
can
you
throw
that
onto
the
stable,
like
the.
B
B
A
D
D
A
A
Sounds
good
this
beta
regression
we
already
discussed
at
length
right.
A
I
think
all
right,
let's
go
up
to
here,
then
lint
for
unused
borrow
as
part
of
unused
must
use.
So
this
is
lint.
It
basically
makes
it
makes
ampersand
exper
or
whatever
issue
a
warning.
If
expert
by
itself
would
issue
a
warning,
because
the
result
is
equally
unused,
I
guess
being
stored
in
a
temporary.
D
B
B
A
bunch
are
also
due
to
specific
crates
that
do
these
actions,
so
fixing
a
few
crates
would
fix
a
lot
of
these
warnings.
A
I
wonder
if
there's
good
reasons
for
that,
on
the
other
hand,
issuing
a
new
warning
is
not
a
breaking
change,
so
no,
it.
B
D
Yeah,
my
interpretation
of
the
concern
was
that,
if
there's
like
a
common
pattern,
that
people
are
doing
that
they've
learned
that
they're
putting
all
over
the
place.
We
should
maybe
not
do
this,
but
I
don't
think
my
interpretation
of
this.
The
report
from
morris
is
that
that's
not
what
was
found
just
that
there's
some
macros.
D
A
That
sounds
right.
We
could
suppress
the
warning
and
generated
code
too,
but.
A
A
E
I'm
curious,
like
the
situation
with
these
things,
generating
macros
are
encoded.
This
I
mean.
Is
it
plausible
that
there
are
cases
where
yeah
we're
generating
this,
but
it's
because
the
macro
author
intends
this
thing
to
be
able
to
be
used
in
contexts
where
right.
The
macro
could
be
invoked
in
context
where
you
need
to
do
the
borrow.
D
D
D
D
Yeah,
I
think
one
is
let's
get
pin
project
to
not
do
this
before
before
applying
this
lint,
if
that's
literally
a
third
of
them.
D
The
and
then
I'd
be
curious
what
is
going
on
with
the
hal
macros
and
things
if
that
is,
as
was
hypothesized
something
related
to
hey.
This
is
actually
intended
to
be
used
as
an
expression
that
generates
the
ampersand,
where
it's
behaving
like
a
function
that
returns
a
breath,
and
thus
it
does
that-
and
we
should
never
warn
on
this
or
if
this
is
the
pattern
of
like
it's
returning
a
temporary
and
the
ampersand
can't
possibly
do
anything
that
somebody
wanted.
Oh,
but
there's
a
draft
there.
So
no
that's
a
reboro,
so
that's
probably
intentional.
A
D
A
A
I
don't
think
this
makes
sense
to
suppress
and
generate
a
code
myself.
I
think.
D
So
the
thing
I'm
imagining
is,
if
you
wrote
this
as
a
function,
I
can
imagine
a
function
that
returns,
something
where
it
takes
a
wrap
of
whatever
it's
returning
and
that
would
not
give
any
lint
warnings,
because
a
ref
coming
out
of
a
function
does
not
warn.
But
here,
if
you
were
to
put
that
into
a
macro
instead
of
a
function,
it
would
start
warning.
E
Should
probably
type
something
yeah,
yeah
scott's
saying
like
you
know,
people
right
could
write
a
function
that
does
that.
Has
the
body
that's
the
same
as
macro
here
and
then
later
they
slide
to
change
to
a
macro
to
manually.
You
know,
force
it
to
be
a
manually
mined
thing
and
scott's
point
is
that
you're
gonna
see
the
warning
from
the
macro
not
from
the
function
definition.
I
believe
why,
or
maybe
you
would
suppose.
Well
not
in
this
case.
I
guess
in
this
case
you
wouldn't
see
the
word.
E
A
Okay,
okay,
I
see
one
thing
I
will
note
is
that
it's,
although
there
were
15
000
warnings,
there
were
not
that
many
crates
affected,
like
those
are
a
lot
of
warnings
from
a
relatively
few
crates,
I
think
seems
like.