Closed workingjubilee closed 5 months ago
As this is formalizing the policy, does this need some kind of consensus from the crate maintainers team? I mean, perhaps not an fcp but maybe some LGTMs.
It doesn't really change anything, I guess, except that because backtrace was minimally maintained for quite awhile the actual msrv drifted quite a bit from the informal policy.
I mean, I de facto cannot merge it without an approval and I cannot approve my own PR, so!
For sure! I just meant like should this be a more than one approval type thing?
Probably!
@workingjubilee pseudo-fcp merge
Team member @workingjubilee has proposed to merge this and is reusing the FCP format because it is a) funny and b) may be useful in capturing consensus. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
Once a number of reviewers that seem to be "enough" approve (with maybe a few approvals outstanding), this will... probably be just merged. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!
cc @rust-lang/crate-maintainers: not-actually-an-FCP proposed for crate-maintainers, please feel free to register concerns. See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me while I am pretending to be a substitute rfcbot.
k, calling this good enough in 10d. :^)
This was effectively Alex Crichton's policy, so this reflects only the decision to formalize a policy.