Skip to content
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

Move stability attribute for items under the ip feature #85672

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 26, 2021

Conversation

CDirkx
Copy link
Contributor

@CDirkx CDirkx commented May 25, 2021

The #[unstable] attribute for items under the ip feature is currently located on the std::net::ip module itself. This is unusual, and less readable. This has sidetracked discussion about these items numerous times (#60145 (comment), #76098 (comment), #76098 (comment), #75019 (comment), #75019 (comment)) and lead to incorrect assumptions about which items are actually stable (#60145 (comment), #76098 (comment)).

This PR moves the attribute from the module to the items themselves.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label May 25, 2021
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

I think this should be 'safe' in the sense that we can't accidentally stabilize anything, so @bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented May 26, 2021

📌 Commit 87cf2d4 has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 26, 2021
JohnTitor added a commit to JohnTitor/rust that referenced this pull request May 26, 2021
Move stability attribute for items under the `ip` feature

The `#[unstable]` attribute for items under the `ip` feature is currently located on the `std::net::ip` module itself. This is unusual, and less readable. This has sidetracked discussion about these items numerous times (rust-lang#60145 (comment), rust-lang#76098 (comment), rust-lang#76098 (comment), rust-lang#75019 (comment), rust-lang#75019 (comment)) and lead to incorrect assumptions about which items are actually stable (rust-lang#60145 (comment), rust-lang#76098 (comment)).

This PR moves the attribute from the module to the items themselves.
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request May 26, 2021
Rollup of 12 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#84048 (Avoid CJK legacy fonts in Windows)
 - rust-lang#85529 (doc: clarify Mutex::try_lock, etc. errors)
 - rust-lang#85590 (Fix bootstrap using host exe suffix for cargo)
 - rust-lang#85610 (Fix pointer provenance in <[T]>::copy_within)
 - rust-lang#85623 (Remove stray .stderr files)
 - rust-lang#85645 (Demote `ControlFlow::{from|into}_try` to `pub(crate)`)
 - rust-lang#85647 (Revert "Move llvm submodule updates to rustbuild")
 - rust-lang#85666 (Document shared_from_cow functions)
 - rust-lang#85668 (Fix tasklist example in rustdoc book.)
 - rust-lang#85672 (Move stability attribute for items under the `ip` feature)
 - rust-lang#85699 (Update books)
 - rust-lang#85701 (Update cargo)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 7caf93f into rust-lang:master May 26, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.54.0 milestone May 26, 2021
@CDirkx CDirkx deleted the ip branch May 26, 2021 10:02
Dylan-DPC-zz pushed a commit to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2021
…htriplett

Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`

Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`, see also rust-lang#85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far.

Unicast site-local addresses (`fec0::/10`) were deprecated in [IETF RFC rust-lang#3879](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3879), see also [RFC rust-lang#4291 Section 2.5.7](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.7). Any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses. This is mentioned in the docs of `is_unicast_site_local` and already implemented in `is_unicast_global`, which considers addresses in `fec0::/10` to have global scope, thus overlapping with `is_unicast_site_local`.

Given that RFC rust-lang#3879 was published in 2004, long before Rust existed, and it is specified that any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses, I don't see how a user would ever have a need for `is_unicast_site_local`. It is also confusing that currently both `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` can be `true` for an address, but an address can actually only have a single scope. The deprecating RFC mentions that Site-Local scope was confusing to work with and that the classification of an address as either Link-Local or Global better matches the mental model of users.

There has been earlier discussion of removing `is_unicast_site_local` (rust-lang#60145 (comment)) which decided against it, but that had the incorrect assumption that the method was already stable; it is not. (This confusion arose from the placement of the unstable attribute on the entire module, instead of on individual methods, resolved in rust-lang#85672)

r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2021
…riplett

Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`

Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`, see also rust-lang#85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far.

Unicast site-local addresses (`fec0::/10`) were deprecated in [IETF RFC rust-lang#3879](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3879), see also [RFC rust-lang#4291 Section 2.5.7](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.7). Any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses. This is mentioned in the docs of `is_unicast_site_local` and already implemented in `is_unicast_global`, which considers addresses in `fec0::/10` to have global scope, thus overlapping with `is_unicast_site_local`.

Given that RFC rust-lang#3879 was published in 2004, long before Rust existed, and it is specified that any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses, I don't see how a user would ever have a need for `is_unicast_site_local`. It is also confusing that currently both `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` can be `true` for an address, but an address can actually only have a single scope. The deprecating RFC mentions that Site-Local scope was confusing to work with and that the classification of an address as either Link-Local or Global better matches the mental model of users.

There has been earlier discussion of removing `is_unicast_site_local` (rust-lang#60145 (comment)) which decided against it, but that had the incorrect assumption that the method was already stable; it is not. (This confusion arose from the placement of the unstable attribute on the entire module, instead of on individual methods, resolved in rust-lang#85672)

r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants