---
# System prepended metadata

title: '# Rustdoc team meetings'

---

## next meeting
* Status of rustdoc mergeable CCI and possible stabilization ([tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130676))
    * unresolved question about removing `--merge=shared`
* TeX math test with math-core: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/151918

## 12-01-2026
* what to do about weird stability notes handling [option 1](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149931), [option 2](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149741)
* [Add a toggle to show/hide private/hidden items?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/149106)
    * Team is split about this: on one side, the gains from this feature don't seem to be worth the added complexity, on the other they like the added value. Since we have 2 in favour and 2 not in favour, debate is reported to next meeting.
    * Team came to a conclusion: because of reexports, it would be technically quite a mess to implement for now. Once private/hidden items handling is re-made in rustdoc, this feature won't be.
* Is it ok to stabilize `--emit`? [PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146220)
    * Someone from the rustdoc team (notriddle volunteered) will investigate what the emit options do
* Discussed quickly about adding roles to the team. Conclusion was for Guillaume to open a PR on rust-forge so team members would discuss it.
    * Haven't started taking a look yet ><
* Discuss supporting fully-qualified syntax and `dyn Trait` support for intra-doc links

## Open PRs

 * [Add support new bang macro kinds](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148005)

## Open FCPs

 * [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)

## 08-12-2025

* [Add a toggle to show/hide private/hidden items?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/149106)
    * Team is split about this: on one side, the gains from this feature don't seem to be worth the added complexity, on the other they like the added value. Since we have 2 in favour and 2 not in favour, debate is reported to next meeting.
* [Add a toggle to show/hide deprecated items](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/149551)
    * Team in favour. Going to comment on the PR to mention it and expand a bit more about the implementation.
* Should we remove `tidy` from HTML tests?
     * Is anyone on the team actually using it?
         * Seems like no one is using it so Guillaume is gonna send a PR to remove it
* Is it ok to stabilize `--emit`? [PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146220)
    * Someone from the rustdoc team (notriddle volunteered) will investigate what the emit options do
* Discussed quickly about adding roles to the team. Conclusion was for Guillaume to open a PR on rust-forge so team members would discuss it.
    * Haven't started taking a look yet ><

## Open PRs

 * [Add support new bang macro kinds](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148005)
 * [Put negative impls first](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142380)

## Open FCPs

 * [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)

## 10-11-2025

* Is it ok to stabilize `--emit`? [PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146220)
    * Someone from the rustdoc team (notriddle volunteered) will investigate what the emit options do
* Refactor: only use `RendererOptions` in html backend, and not before. [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/Using.20.60RenderOptions.60.20in.20less.20places.2E/with/546118585)
    * https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustdoc/config/struct.RenderOptions.html
* Discussed quickly about adding roles to the team. Conclusion was for Guillaume to open a PR on rust-forge so team members would discuss it.

## Open PRs

 * [Add support new bang macro kinds](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148005)

## Open FCPs

 * [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)

## 13-10-2025

* Is it ok to stabilize `--emit`? [PR](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146220)
    * Someone from the rustdoc team (notriddle volunteered) will investigate what the emit options do
* (notriddle) I'm wondering if we should talk about https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146048. I had a tool that I used to benchmark search, but it only measured CPU, not network, and nobody but me ever got it to run consistently.
    * team agrees it would be very useful to have a tool to be able to check performance on rustdoc search
* (predrag) Getting feedback for implicit bounds [#143559](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143559#discussion_r2404542105):
  > I'm hoping to get some feedback on handling implicit bounds on Sized and 'static that can cause the syntactic bounds (what the Rust source & rustdoc show) to be less strict and therefore inaccurate compared to the actual semantic bounds (what the compiler demands in practice).
  * NOTE(@fmease): [I've now replied and green-lit the new proposal.](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143559#discussion_r2426523295)
  * Seems like discussion about this item is done and complete :)

## Open PRs

 * [Add support new bang macro kinds](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145458)

## Open FCPs

 * [Erase #![doc(document_private_items)]](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146495)
 * [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)


## 08-09-2025

* (fmease) Since PR [#138104](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138104) (so: 1.87) we accidentally permit shebangs inside doctests (that have a `main` fn).
  * E.g.,
    ```rs
    //! ```
    //! #!/usr/bin/env -S cargo +nightly -Zscript
    //! fn main() {}
    //! ```
    ```
  * Should declare this as a feature or a bug? I'm leaning towards "feature".
    If we want to keep it, we should add a UI test ofc. (unless the frontmatter PR already added one).
  * Nota bene: This also includes `frontmatter` (unstably).
  * Not sure if downstream tools can make use of them somehow or whether it's completely useless
* (notriddle) I'm wondering if we should talk about https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/146048. I had a tool that I used to benchmark search, but it only measured CPU, not network, and nobody but me ever got it to run consistently.

### Open FCPs

* [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)
* [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
  * latest update: dropped `#[non_exhaustive]` again from the heuristic
  * one vote outstanding; one of Manishearth, jsha or notriddle please tick your box or register a concern

### Open RFCs

 * [Stabilize flags for doctest cross compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096)
     * merged
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)
   * fmease: still no update on the deep-dive I want to organize for this

### Open pull requests

* [Implement RFC 3631: add rustdoc doc_cfg features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138907)
  * needs final review by fmease

## 11-08-2025

- Should rustdoc team have a video-conference once a year?
    - Guillaume needs to write some conditions for:
        - When would it make more sense to have a call than a text meeting?
            - Item under heavy debate
            - (API) design discussions
            - More global discussions, like of the future of the rustdoc tool
            - A meeting to go through FCP/feature request more quickly
        - Would it be instead of a regular meeting?
            - Yes
        - Check how compiler "steering meetings" go and what they are about and check if they would match our needs
- [[Rust Forge] Add rustdoc team processes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-forge/pull/852)
    - Shape of rustdoc team, re json/frontend subteam.
        - Three roles for T-rustdoc members: rustdoc-core, rustdoc-front-end and rustdoc-json

### Open FCPs

* [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)
* [Add `no-hidden-lines` codeblock attribute](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118711)
    * closing: before closing the issue, need to add an example (more complete) in the rustdoc book
* [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)

### Open RFCs

 * [Stabilize flags for doctest cross compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096)
     * merged
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)

### Open pull requests

* [Implement RFC 3631: add rustdoc doc_cfg features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138907)

## 14-07-2025

- Should rustdoc team have a video-conference once a year?
    - Guillaume needs to write some conditions for:
        - When would it make more sense to have a call than a text meeting?
        - Would it be instead of a regular meeting?
- [[Rust Forge] Add rustdoc team processes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-forge/pull/852)
    - Shape of rustdoc team, re json/frontend subteam.
- [rustdoc should include aliases in search that only partially matches](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140782)
- [Add new doc(attribute = "...") attribute](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/142472)
    - Open a zulip thread on t-compiler to ensure they're aware of the existence of this new feature
        - Done [here](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/131828-t-compiler/topic/New.20.60.23.5Bdoc.28attribute.20.3D.20.22.2E.2E.2E.22.29.5D.60.20rustdoc.20feature/with/528748379)

### Open FCPs

* [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)
* [get rid of some false negatives in rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132748)
* [rustdoc: add ways of collapsing all impl blocks](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/141663)
* [Display unsafe attrs with edition 2024 `unsafe()` wrappers](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/143662)

### Open RFCs

 * [Stabilize flags for doctest cross compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096)
     * merged
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)

### Open pull requests

* [use a button instead of a bar for search](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133279)
* [Implement RFC 3631: add rustdoc doc_cfg features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138907)
* [Add new `--book-location` option to add a link to associated guide and generate it if local](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139769)
* [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)

## 09-06-2025

- Should rustdoc team have a video-conference once a year?
    - Guillaume needs to write some conditions for:
        - When would it make more sense to have a call than a text meeting?
        - Would it be instead of a regular meeting?
- [[Rust Forge] Add rustdoc team processes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-forge/pull/852) (!)
    - Shape of rustdoc team, re json/frontend subteam.
- [rustdoc should include aliases in search that only partially matches](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140782)

### Open FCPs

* [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)
* [get rid of some false negatives in rustdoc::broken_intra_doc_links](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132748)

### Open RFCs

 * [Stabilize flags for doctest cross compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096)
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)

### Open pull requests

* [use a button instead of a bar for search](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133279)
* [Implement RFC 3631: add rustdoc doc_cfg features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138907)
* [Add new `--book-location` option to add a link to associated guide and generate it if local](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139769)
* [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)

## 16-05-2025

- [rustdoc should include aliases in search that only partially matches](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/140782)

### Open front-end polls

### Open FCPs

* [Deprecate option --test-args in favor of new insta-stable option --test-arg](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139869)

### Open RFCs

 * [Stabilize flags for doctest cross compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096)
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)

### Open pull requests

* [use a button instead of a bar for search](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133279)
* [Implement RFC 3631: add rustdoc doc_cfg features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138907)
* [Add new `--book-location` option to add a link to associated guide and generate it if local](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139769)
* [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
* [Improve handling of rustdoc lints when used with raw doc fragments](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/136400)

## 14-04-2025

* [High level design for more flexible type alias resolution](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/138617)
* [How tolerant should we be about things that are technically invalid links?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132748)
* [Consider allowing customization of how cfg gates are rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87139)

### Open front-end polls

### Open FCPs

### Open RFCs

 * [Stabilize flags for doctest cross compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/137096)
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)

## 10-03-2025

* Projectwide/Treewide stuff:
    * [require compiler sign-off and reviews from other relevant teams for adding blocking ecosystem, custom codegen backend) test jobs to rust-lang/rust](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/233931-xxx/topic/Policy.3A.20Require.20MCP.20and.20relevant.20team.20nom.E2.80.A6.20compiler-team.23845)
    * [project-scoped MCP](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/486433-all-hands-2025/topic/Project-scope.20MCP/with/503576755)
* Binary/internal doctests
    * Not sure which way to implement them:
        * Add a new `--doctest` flag on rustc?
        * Generate "inlined" doctests on expanded code?
    * Meeting discussion:
        * Need to be careful for "auto-detection rule": it should only be applied on publically documented items (so directly public or publically reexported)
* [how to handle null checks in search.js](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/Further.20improvments.20to.20typechecking.20in.20search.2Ejs)
* [Generating a documentation for tests](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/130463)
  * Should `--document-tests` pass a `cfg(test)` implicitly, like the `--test` option for rustc, or should it not?

### Open front-end polls

### Open FCPs

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC 3631: doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)
     * approved, waiting for end of final comment period
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)

## 10-02-2025

* Make rustdoc run all rustc's passes
    * We talked about it from time to time, should we make it an official goal for our team?
        * Technical challenges
* [edition-agnostic impl-Trait capturing](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/135453)
    * We decided to go for approach B: use latest compiler version to display it

### Open front-end polls

### Open FCPs

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC 3631: doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)
 * [Draft RFC: doc(consts)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3770)

## 13-01-2025

* [use a button instead of a bar for search](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133279)
  * example searches on the new "search homepage"
* [Type-based search for non-function items](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131806)
  * [clone-like items in `-> Whatever` searches](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134935)
  * [associated items in `Whatever ->` searches](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134936)
* [re-add --disable-minification to rustdoc for easier debugging](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/135353)
* Follow up previous discussion of [RFC 3311: Add descriptive names to doctests](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3311)
  * https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134530

### Open front-end polls

### Open FCPs

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC 3631: doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)

## 09-12-2024

* edition-independent/agnostic precise capturing bounds (`use<...>`): yes/no?
  * context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127228#issuecomment-2201462571
  * context: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/213817-t-lang/topic/blog.20post.20about.20precise.20capture/near/477498874
* [Type-based search for non-function items](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131806)
* do we want [type&name](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131852) searches?
* consider more agressivly benchmarking rustdoc search to catch performance regressions ([related issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131156))

#### Open front-end polls

### Open FCPs

 * [Add `--doctest-compilation-args` option to add compilation flags to doctest compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128780)
 * [Tracking issue for Rust 2024: Fix doctest `include` paths
](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132230#issuecomment-2440569903)

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC 3631: doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)
 * [RFC 3311: Add descriptive names to doctests](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3311) (**merge**: 5/8 (6 needed))
   * 3 blocking concerns: *braced-unbraced*, *hard-errors*, *interoperability*
   * NOTE(fmease): I'd like us to resolve these concerns in the meeting if possible.

## 11-11-2024

* (If aDotInTheVoid present): rustdoc-types publish check.
* [add new crate: syntax to search a single crate](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129914)
     * decide whether this or the popover approach is a better first step
         * If not the popover approach, what the syntax should be while keeping in mind that we could support multiple crates filtering in the future
* ~~[search: simplify rules for generics and type params](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127589)~~ (merged)
  * ~~1:1 mapping for generics, or 1:N?~~
* do we want [type&name](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131852) searches?
* consider more agressivly benchmarking rustdoc search to catch performance regressions ([related issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/131156))
* [#[doc(fold)]](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131975)
  * related: [Consider adding CCI for the HIR expressions of public constants](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132443)
* edition-independent/agnostic precise capturing bounds (`use<...>`): yes/no?
  * context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127228#issuecomment-2201462571
  * context: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/213817-t-lang/topic/blog.20post.20about.20precise.20capture/near/477498874

### Open front-end polls

 * [Change impl items indent](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131718)

### Open FCPs

 * [Add `--doctest-compilation-args` option to add compilation flags to doctest compilation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/128780)
 * [Tracking issue for Rust 2024: Fix doctest `include` paths
](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/132230#issuecomment-2440569903)

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC 3631: doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)
 * [RFC 3311: Add descriptive names to doctests](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3311) (**merge**: 5/8 (6 needed))
   * 3 blocking concerns: *braced-unbraced*, *hard-errors*, *interoperability*
   * NOTE(fmease): I'd like us to resolve these concerns in the meeting if possible.

### Need RFC

* [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
     * Approved
     * Waiting for someone to write the RFC

## 14-10-2024

* [search: simplify rules for generics and type params](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127589)
  * 1:1 mapping for generics, or 1:N?
* [First line of documentation on collapsed impl blocks should be visible](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/130612)
    * Opened [zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/266220-t-rustdoc/topic/deciding.20on.20semantics.20of.20generics.20in.20rustdoc.20search)
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [add new crate: syntax to search a single crate](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129914)
     * decide whether this or the popover approach is a better first step
         * If not the popover approach, what the syntax should be while keeping in mind that we could support multiple crates filtering in the future

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC for doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)

### Need RFC

* [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
     * Approved
     * Waiting for someone to write the RFC

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [Greatly speed up doctests by compiling compatible doctests in one file](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126245)
 * (poll) [redesign toolbar and disclosure widgets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129545)
    * upgraded version of [redesign `[+]/[−]` controls #113074](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)

## 09-09-2024

* [rustdoc standalone doctest attribute is confusing, taking up a potentially useful name](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/129098)
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [add new crate: syntax to search a single crate](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129914)
     * decide whether this or the popover approach is a better first step

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC for doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)
 * [Mergeable rustdoc cross-crate info](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3662)
 * [RFC: Move rustdoc-types crate to `T-Rustdoc` ownership](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3505)
     * What's missing for it to be approved?
         * aDotInTheVoid needs to add clarifications then they will start the FCP

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [Greatly speed up doctests by compiling compatible doctests in one file](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126245)
 * (poll) [redesign toolbar and disclosure widgets](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129545)
    * upgraded version of [redesign `[+]/[−]` controls #113074](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)

## 12-08-2024

 * [rustdoc-search: simplify rules for generics and type params #127589](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127589)
   * Does this solve the ["bug with type parameters"](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124544#issuecomment-2195634476) blocking concern on [rustdoc-search: show type signature on type-driven SERP
   * camelid: working on hiding children of blanket impls in type-based search
#124544](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/124544)?
 * [document-private-items makes aliased types expansion see through private fields](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123860)
     * Should we only expand local types?
 * [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
     * Approved
     * Waiting for someone to write the RFC
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC for doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)
 * [Mergeable rustdoc cross-crate info](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3662)
 * [RFC: Move rustdoc-types crate to `T-Rustdoc` ownership](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3505)
     * What's missing for it to be approved?
         * aDotInTheVoid needs to add clarifications then they will start the FCP

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [Greatly speed up doctests by compiling compatible doctests in one file](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126245)
 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
         * jsha is taking a look

## 08-07-2024

 * "Quick feedback round": New subteam `rustdoc-frontend`.
 * Goals of the rustdoc team?
     * Guillaume: Find more information about what is expected more exactly
     * Potential goals:
         * further simplify UI
         * use rustc_middle more, once lazy_type_alias is stabilized, so that type aliases are shown properly everywhere. and reduce inconsistency with cross-crate re-eexports
         * also generally clean up edge cases (like case sensitivity, e.g. SelfTy keyword issue)
 * [document-private-items makes aliased types expansion see through private fields](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123860)
     * Should we only expand local types?
 * [RFC: Move rustdoc-types crate to `T-Rustdoc` ownership](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3505)
     * What's missing for it to be approved?
         * aDotInTheVoid needs to add clarifications then they will start the FCP
 * [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
     * Approved
     * Waiting for someone to write the RFC
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC for doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)
 * [Mergeable rustdoc cross-crate info](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3662)

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
         * jsha is taking a look

## 10-06-2024

### To discuss

 * Goals of the rustdoc team?
     * Guillaume: Find more information about what is expected more exactly
     * Potential goals:
         * further simplify UI
         * use rustc_middle more, once lazy_type_alias is stabilized, so that type aliases are shown properly everywhere. and reduce inconsistency with cross-crate re-eexports
         * also generally clean up edge cases (like case sensitivity, e.g. SelfTy keyword issue)
 * Follow model from [compiler team changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3599) and instead add roles?
     * Need to discuss exactly what we want to "take" from this RFC that applies to the rustdoc team
 * [document-private-items makes aliased types expansion see through private fields](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123860)
     * Should we only expand local types?
 * [RFC: Move rustdoc-types crate to `T-Rustdoc` ownership](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3505)
     * What's missing for it to be approved?
         * aDotInTheVoid needs to add clarifications then they will start the FCP
 * [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
     * Approved
     * Waiting for someone to write the RFC
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC for doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
         * jsha is taking a look

## 13-05-2024

### To discuss

 * Promote `@fmease` as full member of the rustdoc team?
     * Need to open the PR
 * Follow model from [compiler team changes](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3599) and instead add roles?
     * Need to discuss exactly what we want to "take" from this RFC that applies to the rustdoc team
 * [document-private-items makes aliased types expansion see through private fields](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123860)
     * Should we only expand local types?
 * [RFC: Move rustdoc-types crate to `T-Rustdoc` ownership](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3505)
     * What's missing for it to be approved?
         * aDotInTheVoid needs to add clarifications then they will start the FCP
 * [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
     * Approved
     * Waiting for someone to write the RFC
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?

### Open RFCs

 * [RFC for doc_cfg, doc_cfg_auto, doc_cfg_hide and doc_cfg_show features](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3631)

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
         * jsha is taking a look
 * (merge) [Add support for --remap-path-prefix](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107099)
     * Just waiting for everyone to approve

## 08-04-2024

### To discuss

 * [Always display stability version even if it's the same as the containing item](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118441)
     * team seems to be shared about this
 * [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
     * Approved.
 * [rustdoc-search: single result for items with multiple paths](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119912)
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
         * jsha is taking a look
 * (close) [Add support for --remap-path-prefix](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107099)
 * (merge) [Add `/` key to focus on search input](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123355)

## 11-03-2024

### To discuss

 * [search types by higher-order functions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119676): should we continue to increase the syntax complexity for the search to have more advanced search features?
     * the team accepted this feature :+1: 
 * [Add unstable `--test-builder-wrapper` flag](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114651)
     * Accepted by the team
 * [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
     * Team is in favor of this feature, just not sure how to address it.
 * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
         * jsha is taking a look
 * (close) [Always display stability version even if it's the same as the containing item](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118441)
     * Guillaume, Alona and Nemo seem in favor to show the stability version all the time. Not enough time to be discussed. Postponed to next meeting.

## 12-02-2024

### To discuss

 * [Checkbox to hide unstable things?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/68184)
     * rejected
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * team agreed that we want it
     * First implementation should be for the JSON format
     * UI discussion:
         * only show information on non-covariant items
         * Reduce "text noise" by having a link with little text to mention that the item is not covariant
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?
 * [Prefer full reference links for intra-doc links](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117178)
 * [Add unstable `--test-builder-wrapper` flag](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114651)
 * [doc(canonical)](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3011)
 * Showing "this item is a reexport of `X`" on inlined re-exports?
 * [search types by higher-order functions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119676): should we continue to increase the syntax complexity for the search to have more advanced search features?

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
         * jsha is taking a look
 * (close) [Always display stability version even if it's the same as the containing item](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118441)
     * More general policy question: what's the burden of evidence for making a change like this? It *seems* like most of the evidence we could gather is already here.

## 08-01-2024

### To discuss

 * [RFC 3505: Move rustdoc-types crate to T-Rustdoc ownership](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3505)
     * Discussions still in progress on the RFC
 * [Some items don't have documentation rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112379)
     * Need to write a document explaining in detail what this is about
         * https://hackmd.io/utkhPlwpSyCvB-LE8KmyIw
         * Rejected.
 * [Checkbox to hide unstable things?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/68184)
     * not discussed
 * Adding `#[doc(allow_unknown)]` attribute? Linked to [Turn `INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES` lint into a hard error starting edition 2024](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111505)
     * Otherwise that would mean that using new doc attributes could force to change MSRV.
     * Most people seem in favour to turn it into a hard error starting 2024 edition
     * Decided to keep it as lint by denied by default.
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
     * Discussion started, but no clear decision for now. 
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?
 * [Prefer full reference links for intra-doc links](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117178)
 * [Add unstable `--test-builder-wrapper` flag](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114651)

### Open FCPs

 * (merge) [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
 * (merge) [Should rustdoc support links in headings?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117662)
     * Some changes to be done to unify headings
 * (close) [Add a `default` flag for enum documentation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115575)
     * A lot of concerns were raised about the limits of the current feature implementation and the limits of the potential "extension" (ie checking `Default` trait impl directly).
 * (close) [Always display stability version even if it's the same as the containing item](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118441)
     * More general policy question: what's the burden of evidence for making a change like this? It *seems* like most of the evidence we could gather is already here.

## 04-12-2023

### To discuss

 * [Some items don't have documentation rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112379)
     * Need to write a document explaining in detail what this is about
         * Not done yet.
 * Adding `#[doc(allow_unknown)]` attribute? Linked to [Turn `INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES` lint into a hard error starting edition 2024](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111505)
     * Otherwise that would mean that using new doc attributes could force to change MSRV.
     * Most people seem in favour to turn it into a hard error starting 2024 edition
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?
 * [Prefer full reference links for intra-doc links](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117178)

### Open FCPs

 * [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
     * Need to comment why not using triangles
     * Resolve concern?
 * [Don't merge cfg and doc(cfg) attributes for re-exports](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113091)
     * Approved.
 * [Should rustdoc support links in headings?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117662)
     * Some changes to be done to unify headings
 * [allow resizing the sidebar / hiding the top bar](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115660)
     * Approved.
 * [Add a `default` flag for enum documentation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115575)
     * A lot of concerns were raised about the limits of the current feature implementation and the limits of the potential "extension" (ie checking `Default` trait impl directly).
 * [search for tuples and unit by type with `()`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118194)
 * [Always display stability version even if it's the same as the containing item](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118441)
     * More general policy question: what's the burden of evidence for making a change like this? It *seems* like most of the evidence we could gather is already here.

## 06-11-2023

### To discuss

 * [Should rustdoc support links in headings?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100254)
     * Need an implementation and a live website so people can test it out.
 * [Some items don't have documentation rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112379)
     * Need to write a document explaning in detail what this is about
 * Adding `#[doc(allow_unknown)]` attribute? Linked to [Turn `INVALID_DOC_ATTRIBUTES` lint into a hard error starting edition 2024](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/111505)
     * Otherwise that would mean that using new doc attributes could force to change MSRV.
     * Most people seem in favour to turn it into a hard error starting 2024 edition
 * [Document generic parameter variance in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/3515)
 * [hide `#[repr]` if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882)
     * Fundamental question: Should we hide `#[repr]` all the time?
       * **PRO**: rustdoc doesn't need to impl sophisticated heuristics which can't be perfect anyways atm due to [#114952](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114952) forcing users to write down guarantees in prose in some scenarios.
       * **CON**: In almost all reasonable cases, the WIP heuristic does work flawlessly and I'd argue that the presence/absence of `#[repr]` is a helpful quick-to-read indicator for users
       * **CON**: We've already implemented a sophisticated and FCP'ed heuristic for `repr(transparent)` ([#115439](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)). It's only logical to extend it to other `#[repr]`s.
     * Should we hide `#[repr]` if *all* enum variants are private/hidden or if *some* are? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364751716).
     * Should we hide it only if *all* struct fields are private/hidden or if *some* are? What about `doc(hidden)` on enum variant fields? Should we take them into account? [**See also**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116882#discussion_r1364658982).
     * Should we apply the same logic to all representation hints (`C`, `uN`, `iN`, `simd`, `packed`, `aligned`)?
 * [Prefer full reference links for intra-doc links](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117178)

### Open FCPs

 * [Add a `default` flag for enum documentation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115575)
 * [Don't merge cfg and doc(cfg) attributes for re-exports](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113091)
 * [allow resizing the sidebar / hiding the top bar](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115660)
 * [redesign `[+]`/`[−]` controls](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113074)
 * [rustdoc-search: add support for traits and associated types](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116085)

### Finished FCPs
<!-- fmease: not sure if this section is useful -->

 * [hide #[repr(transparent)] if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)
 * [Document lack of object safety on affected traits
](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113241)

### Any bugs than should be prioritized to be fixed?

## 02-10-2023

### To discuss

 * [call for rustdoc-types maintainers](https://hackmd.io/@aDot/SJ3KnH8A3)
     * Is it worth posting this as a pre-rfc to IRLO, or should I just go straigh to RFC PR?
     * Planning to make an RFC. Draft is here: https://hackmd.io/@aDot/SJ3KnH8A3
 * [Add a default flag for enum documentation](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115575)
     * Team agrees to add the feature but more discussions are required about the possibility to disable it
 * [Documentation size can grow significantly due to documentation of impls on type aliases](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/115718)
     * Team agrees that the size increase is problematic. Potential solution would be to handle it with JS like we do with foreign traits impls.
 * [Show enum variant value if it is a C-like variant](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116142)
     * Team agrees with the feature. Some parts are missing, PR needs to be updated.

### Open FCPs

 * [rustdoc: hide #[repr(transparent)] if it isn't part of the public ABI](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115439)
 * [rustdoc search: add impl disambiguator to duplicate assoc items](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/109422)

### Issues needing discussion

 * [Should rustdoc support links in headings?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100254)
 * [Some items don't have documentation rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112379)

### Any bugs than should be prioritized to be fixed?

## 04-09-2023

### To discuss

 * [Add `fmease` to rustdoc review rotations](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115342)
   * GuillaumeGomez: Approved.

### Open FCPs

 * [rustdoc search: add impl disambiguator to duplicate assoc items](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/109422)
    * notriddle: Since the last meeting, an additional section has been added that describes the bug being fixed in more detail.
 * [Don't merge cfg and doc(cfg) attributes for re-exports](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113091)
    * notriddle: This seems to be blocked on glob imports?
 * [rustdoc-search: add support for type parameters](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112725)
    * notriddle: Since the last meeting, sample queries have been added to the "Motivation" section.
    * GuillaumeGomez: Approved.
 * [show inner enum and struct in type definition for concrete type](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114855)
    * notriddle: This PR is in FCP right now.
    * GuillaumeGomez: Approved.

### Items needing discussion

 * [RFC: Cargo feature descriptions & metadata
](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3416)
    * rustdoc part: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3421/files
    * notriddle: Not sure if blocked on Rustdoc, or on Cargo.
 * [align stability badge to baseline instead of bottom](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/105666)
    * notriddle: It seems like there's an unmoving situation where everyone just disagrees on what "looks right."
 * [Strikethrough deprecated items in sidebar](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113082)
    * notriddle: No movement for months. Everyone (read: GuillaumeGomez) who has commented on this says that strikethrough is a bad way to do it. To progress, an alternative is needed?
    * GuillaumeGomez: Rejected.

### Issues needing discussion

 * [Is rustdoc supposed to work with broken Rust code?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107289#issuecomment-1545323095)
     * GuillaumeGomez: No consensus reached. Need to get some incencitives first with a crater run to see how many crates would be impacted by this change first. It would still very likely require to be done as part as a new edition.
 * [Some items don't have documentation rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112379)
 * [Should rustdoc support links in headings?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100254)

### Any bugs than should be prioritized to be fixed?

## 07-08-2023

### Open FCPs

 * [Accept additional user-defined classes in fenced code blocks](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110800)
     * Accepted
 * [Add warning block support in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106561)
     * Did everyone answer the poll? (https://score.vote/gpBi43e7kr/results)
         * We might want to pick another way to get answers for similar cases in the future since it's complicated to answer it.
    * Status: Accepted, need imperio and notriddle to pick one UI and move forward with it.
 * [rustdoc search: add impl disambiguator to duplicate assoc items](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/109422)
     * notriddle will add screenshots to depict the problem.
 * [Don't merge cfg and doc(cfg) attributes for re-exports](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113091)

### Items needing discussion

 * [RFC: Cargo feature descriptions & metadata
](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3416)
    * rustdoc part: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3421/files
 * [align stability badge to baseline instead of bottom](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/105666)

### Issues needing discussion

 * [Is rustdoc supposed to work with broken Rust code?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107289#issuecomment-1545323095)
 * [Some items don't have documentation rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112379)
 * [Should rustdoc support links in headings?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100254)
 * [askama migration](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108868): the code is more complex than before and tend to have worse performance. So is it really worth it?

### Any bugs than should be prioritized to be fixed?

## 03-07-2023

### Open FCPs

 * [Accept additional user-defined classes in fenced code blocks](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110800)
     * Missing explanations in the PR: improve the description
     * Add missing use cases from the original PR
     * Add use cases and rationale on the tracking issue as well
 * [Allow whitespace as path separator like double colon](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/108537)
     * Merged.
 * [Add warning block support in rustdoc](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106561)
     * Team agreed on the markdown syntax for this feature: plain HTML
     * Need to make a poll so rustdoc team members can pick their preferred UI.
 * [rustdoc search: add impl disambiguator to duplicate assoc items](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/109422)
     * No disagreement.
 * [rustdoc-search: add support for type parameters](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/112725)
 * [Don't merge cfg and doc(cfg) attributes for re-exports](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/113091)

### Items needing discussion

 * [RFC: Cargo feature descriptions & metadata
](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3416)

### Issues needing discussion

 * [Some items don't have documentation rendered](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/112379)
 * [Should rustdoc support links in headings?](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/100254)
 * [askama migration](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/108868): the code is more complex than before and tend to have worse performance. So is it really worth it?

### Any bugs than should be prioritized to be fixed?

