Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

We have not done any scheduling for what comes after 1.0. I've been doing a huge amount of triage to move over issues that used to be in rust-lang/rust to be under that label, too, and to make it more detailed than just 'wishlist.' We'll figure out exactly what's next shortly before the first post-1.0 cycle actually begins.

http://users.rust-lang.org/t/most-coveted-rust-features/324 was a thread created recently, asking people what they want the most. You might find that interesting too.

Re: Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

#4

Post by breckinloggins » Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 7:28 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #3

breckinloggins wrote: post #2

One thing I'm less clear on is what will happen after 1.0. Is there a "post 1.0 wishlist" somewhere?

Funny you should ask: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/labels/A-wishlist We have not done any scheduling for what comes after 1.0. I've been doing a huge amount of triage to move over issues that used to be in rust-lang/rust to be under that label, too, and to make it more detailed than just 'wishlist.' We'll figure out exactly what's next shortly before the first post-1.0 cycle actually begins. http://users.rust-la…

Thank you!

Re: Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

#5

Post by gtaylor » Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 7:48 PM UTC

I haven't been tinkering with Rust, merely keep an eye on it until 1.0 lands. For those who are currently more in touch with the situation, does this release date look realistic, without quality suffering? Is the 1.0 release premature, aggressive, or very realistic?

It seems like the standard library has seen a ton of work in the last month or two. I'm surprised at how aggressive the release schedule is, given how things are still churning a good deal.

Re: Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

#6

Post by netcraft » Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 7:50 PM UTC

From the outside looking in, I am mostly impressed with the governance structure of the whole endeavor. It seems to me that it is a great model for other open source projects.

Edit: as someone involved with other, less mature (and less ambitious) open source projects, if you know of pain points in the governance of rust, i'd be interested in learning about them.

Re: Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

#7

Post by aturon » Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

gtaylor wrote: post #5

I haven't been tinkering with Rust, merely keep an eye on it until 1.0 lands. For those who are currently more in touch with the situation, does this release date look realistic, without quality suffering? Is the 1.0 release premature, aggressive, or very realistic? It seems like the standard library has seen a ton of work in the last month or two. I'm surprised at how aggressive the release schedule is, given how th…

There has been a lot of work on `std`, but it's largely been consistency, cleanup and cutting APIs down -- though the recent path and IO reforms are more substantial, which is why we decided to put out another alpha before finalizing them.

Re: Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

#8

Post by warnhardcode » Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

netcraft wrote: post #6

From the outside looking in, I am mostly impressed with the governance structure of the whole endeavor. It seems to me that it is a great model for other open source projects. Edit: as someone involved with other, less mature (and less ambitious) open source projects, if you know of pain points in the governance of rust, i'd be interested in learning about them.

I have only the vague understanding that there are governance structures in place for open source projects. Can you go into a little detail about what aspects of this project's governance impress you?

Re: Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

#9

Post by kzrdude » Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 7:58 PM UTC

breckinloggins wrote: post #2

One thing I'm less clear on is what will happen after 1.0. Is there a "post 1.0 wishlist" somewhere?

A feature that has already seen many proposed rfcs and long discussions is "Efficient code reuse" (a.k.a some kind of inheritance), summarized here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/349 It was explicitly postponed until after 1.0.

Re: Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

#10

Post by codys » Fri, Feb 13, 2015, 8:01 PM UTC

netcraft wrote: post #6

From the outside looking in, I am mostly impressed with the governance structure of the whole endeavor. It seems to me that it is a great model for other open source projects. Edit: as someone involved with other, less mature (and less ambitious) open source projects, if you know of pain points in the governance of rust, i'd be interested in learning about them.

There's a governance structure? That's news to me.

I was under the impression that a few primary contributors (mostly/all mozilla employees?) are gatekeepers to merging anything.

Having an "RFC" issue tracker isn't the same as having a governance structure.

Edit: I suppose you could call the above a 'governance structure', but I'm having a hard time seeing anything impressive/different about it from other open source projects