[Coding Guidelines] Agenda for 2025-12-03#522
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for safety-critical-rust-consortium canceled.
|
|
Sorry for the delay, forgot to come back to this yesterday after the meeting! |
PLeVasseur
left a comment
PLeVasseur
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, let's wait to merge this till the notes are in for 2025-11-19
|
|
||
| 1. Solicitation of notetaker | ||
| 2. Acceptance of Previous Meeting Minutes | ||
| * Minutes for 2025-11-19 are missing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think @darkwisebear ran this meeting. Just merged the agenda:
#510
@darkwisebear -- Could you push those minutes up first, before these merge so we can have the linkage?
| * Correct \> complete → We should actually formalize this a bit, so that it’s clear that a small but correct piece of content for each chapter is enough to get stuff merged. | ||
| * Reviewing [https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/220](https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/220) | ||
| * Maybe too many compliant examples? We might want to create an issue to reduce the number of examples to make the rule easier to comprehend | ||
| * Q: Does every subsection also have a state? → Yes, that’s how thie guidelines were designed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A limitation of my knowledge and/or Sphinx Needs 😅
| * Maybe too many compliant examples? We might want to create an issue to reduce the number of examples to make the rule easier to comprehend | ||
| * Q: Does every subsection also have a state? → Yes, that’s how thie guidelines were designed | ||
| * Q: How do compiler flags influence the rule? → Seems there were some out-of-band discussions to avoid panics/aborts. We might want to consider compiler flags in the future | ||
| * Examples have the same ID from the examples, which is unintentional. Needs to be fixed before PR merge. Would CI see that? \[TODO: Alex or David: Update PR to use unique IDs\] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This merged already:
Safety-Critical-Rust-Consortium/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines#220
@AlexCeleste -- could you open an issue to note this for fix and then tag @rcseacord on it?
| * Examples have the same ID from the examples, which is unintentional. Needs to be fixed before PR merge. Would CI see that? \[TODO: Alex or David: Update PR to use unique IDs\] | ||
| * PR can be merged after ID update | ||
| * Review [https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/232](https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/232) | ||
| * We might want to enable the tooling to refer to the title by link instead of repeating |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you expand on this a bit?
| * PR can be merged after ID update | ||
| * Review [https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/232](https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/232) | ||
| * We might want to enable the tooling to refer to the title by link instead of repeating | ||
| * Having links inline makes the source harder to read → Do we want to add this to the guidelines as a general rule? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please open an issue here:
https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines
| * Having links inline makes the source harder to read → Do we want to add this to the guidelines as a general rule? | ||
| * Otherwise approved | ||
| * Review [https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/234](https://github.com/rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-coding-guidelines/pull/234) | ||
| * Rule gets “reused” → We should not do that but create new rule, with the old rule being deprecated |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could someone expand on this, maybe @darkwisebear, to share more context?
cc @rcseacord for visibility
PLeVasseur
left a comment
PLeVasseur
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks again, @AlexCeleste! Updated with link to the previous meeting notes
0e64824
into
Safety-Critical-Rust-Consortium:main
2 participants
No description provided.