This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 14, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This message reads a little to me like it's suggesting that either (a) the change should not be made in rust-lang/rust or (b) that the author is responsible for cherry-picking upstream. I think neither of those are generally true, so I wonder if we can try to figure out a slightly clearer message, maybe just by tagging on a "This is something the project group will take care of, so you don't need to worry about it." or similar.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be clear, from this perspective, many of our messages here are not great, it's just that this is being added and so is coming under slightly more scrutiny by me :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
tbh, it is somewhat preferred if it can be avoided! But I agree that it is Not Necessarily True, just a weak preference in the case where there's no other reason not to, so I am fine with changing the message. The real thing that would be consistently desired, I think, would be that the commits should be structured so that cherry-picking the diff out is easy (it is much more annoying if the same commit diffs both library/portable-simd and the rest of the tree, and structuring a PR in certain ways, like preferring rebasing, is already imposed on contributors) and yes, that it needs to alert someone to do that.
I would rather Insinuate Something, even if that could be misinterpreted, than the more... nondescript quality of most of these messages. Presenting a total void of context is more alarming, in my experience as a contributor, than implying something about preferred processes. A suggestive direction points towards what might be more ideal, and even if misinterpretable, increases confidence about directions. The more ambiguous messages accept any interpretation, decreasing confidence about any direction, almost to the point of inducing anxiety.