-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
docs(ref): Deprecate 'package.authors' #15068
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was left as a future-possibility in [RFC rust-lang#3052](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3052-optional-authors-field.html). Without a clear role for this field within Cargo/crates.io, there seems little reason to actively support it (e.g. rust-lang#14949, rust-lang#15027), including working through feature requests. I see the potential for having some fields with more specific roles (where to go for support, where to go for disclosing vulnerabilities, etc) but even these run into the mutable data problem of `authors`. Users can always manage metadata for their own purposes through `package.metadata`. The RFC called out clap as an example of something that uses this. Clap no longer does by default but users can opt-in through a `help_template`. For now, this notes the status in the documentation. When we have[user control over Cargo lint (rust-lang#12235) (and figure out namespacing with lints that overlap with Rust), we can give a warning on this. Based on feedback from users, we can evaluate removing this field in a future edition. We may want to consider doing similar for `badges`
rustbot
added
A-documenting-cargo-itself
Area: Cargo's documentation
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Jan 15, 2025
CI failure seems unrelated
|
See #15065 (comment). Haven't figured out the root cause. |
weihanglo
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-documenting-cargo-itself
Area: Cargo's documentation
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
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.
What does this PR try to resolve?
This was left as a future-possibility in
RFC #3052.
Without a clear role for this field within Cargo/crates.io,
there seems little reason to actively support it (e.g. #14949, #15027),
including working through feature requests.
I see the potential for having some fields with more specific roles
(where to go for support, where to go for disclosing vulnerabilities, etc)
but even these run into the mutable data problem of
authors
.Users can always manage metadata for their own purposes through
package.metadata
.The RFC called out clap as an example of something that uses this.
Clap no longer does by default but users can opt-in through a
help_template
.For now, this notes the status in the documentation.
When we have[user control over Cargo lint (#12235)
(and figure out namespacing with lints that overlap with Rust),
we can give a warning on this.
Based on feedback from users, we can evaluate removing this field in a
future edition.
This is as discussed in a recent Cargo team meeting
How should we test and review this PR?
Additional information
We may want to consider doing similar for
badges