Skip to content

Conversation

xizheyin
Copy link
Member

@xizheyin xizheyin commented Jun 26, 2025

This PR explains rules for deriving diagnostic shareing arguments in rdg. cc #142724
And fix some nits.

r? @oli-obk

@rustbot rustbot added A-rustc-dev-guide Area: rustc-dev-guide S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 26, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 26, 2025

The rustc-dev-guide subtree was changed. If this PR only touches the dev guide consider submitting a PR directly to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide otherwise thank you for updating the dev guide with your changes.

cc @BoxyUwU, @jieyouxu, @Kobzol, @tshepang

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jun 26, 2025

Hi, since this PR only modifies the rdg (and not anything else), could you please send it against https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide directly? Thanks!

@xizheyin
Copy link
Member Author

No problem. :) I was advised to submit documentation here the other day. lol
rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#2465 (comment)

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jun 26, 2025

Oh, sorry for that 😅 We'll discuss it.

@Kobzol
Copy link
Member

Kobzol commented Jun 26, 2025

I think the confusion mostly was from you not knowing that you can actually land rdg changes in this repo. Normally, you would land them in the same PR that changed/added/removed implementation related to the docs changes, but you sent it as a separate PR, which triggered my original response.

@xizheyin
Copy link
Member Author

I will resubmit this PR in rdg.

@xizheyin xizheyin closed this Jun 26, 2025
@xizheyin xizheyin deleted the rdg-diagnostic branch July 21, 2025 14:25
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-rustc-dev-guide Area: rustc-dev-guide S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants