-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15.1k
Stabilize -Zprofile-sample-use
#155942
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Stabilize -Zprofile-sample-use
#155942
Changes from 4 commits
f6ee72b
84f2d63
9c33952
6978fab
f19a92f
4cc83fd
167a496
0570f86
01a5987
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
|
zamazan4ik marked this conversation as resolved.
jieyouxu marked this conversation as resolved.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Thought (non-blocking; forcing an inline comment): re. the E2E testing difficulty, I almost wonder if we should put a disclaimer somewhere that "hey dear user, while this is a stable flag, its artifacts1 are best effort2" (and encourage bug reports etc.). I do wonder if we can work with downstream projects to have earlier canary signals on if this breaks. Footnotes
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. From the zulip thread, apparently Google uses this functionality extensively and RfL does or wants to use it as well. Those both have direct links to the rust project so we'd probably hear about it before a stable release.
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's an interesting idea - I am in full support of it. Even if it can be kinda controversial for users ("It's marked as Stable - so it's tested. Why did they mark it as stable at first?!") - I think being explicit here is a good thing. Maybe it would be a good idea additionally put such a disclaimer into the
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Personally, I rather be honest/upfront about the... "implementation quality" or "how 'stable' or 'reliable' something is" or "how much we can 'promise'"? Which gives users more signal/info to judge if they want to use this flag, including potential risks like this. But I also understand if it seems better to omit it. |
This file was deleted.
This file was deleted.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.