Skip to content

remove untrue/contentious statement #2583

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 27, 2025
Merged

remove untrue/contentious statement #2583

Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4ad50e0
remove untrue/contentious statement
tshepang Sep 8, 2025
81031d9
restore helpful explanation
tshepang Oct 4, 2025
f9ec745
improve and strengthen wording
tshepang Oct 27, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions src/contributing.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ channels: stable, beta, and nightly.

- **Stable**: this is the latest stable release for general usage.
- **Beta**: this is the next release (will be stable within 6 weeks).
- **Nightly**: follows the `master` branch of the repo. This is the only
channel where unstable, incomplete, or experimental features are usable with
feature gates.
- **Nightly**: follows the `master` branch of the repo.
This is the only channel where unstable, incomplete, or experimental features
should be used (with feature gates).
Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu Oct 18, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggestion: can you say something more like "are intended/designed to be usable through opt-in via feature gates"? (Well, ideally with a less confusing wording than what I wrote.) "Should" sounds a bit to me like a "weak recommendation/vibe", but this really is the intended stability versus experimentation design setup. RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP has nothing to do with the design intention, it is merely an internal implementation detail to make bootstrapping possible. I would also just say "unstable", since that's why we have different release channels. Whether said unstable feature is incomplete/experimental doesn't really matter.


See [this chapter on implementing new features](./implementing_new_features.md) for more
information.
Expand Down