# Meeting 2025-03-19
<!-- Leave your topic starting with ### in the relevant sections below -->

## Critical
<!-- bugs, soundness issues, urgent patches/reviews etc. -->

## Status Reports
<!-- You want to report on something you are working on/request reviews.
Or you want to know the status of something someone else is doing -->

## Discussion Questions
<!-- Anything that requires lengthy discussion/more general questions also fit here -->

### `SANITY` Comments

Danilo suggested to have `SANITY` comments similar to `SAFETY` comments: <https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z9hGcClQXpEYUYZp@cassiopeiae/>

A couple points from me:
* we shouldn't use `SANITY`, on a quick glance it seems similar to `SAFETY` and we should be very vary of confusion between the two
* I'm not sure if they have a consistent format or phrasing, safety comments do. But for sanity stuff I'm not sure what one would write in general.

Boqun: how about `FORGET:` ;-)

Benno: how about `FOOTGUN`

Miguel: how about `PITFALL`

Danilo: `JUSTIFY`?

Benno: I wouldn't use `JUSTIFY`, since that sounds a lot like the language that I use for safety comments.

Tamir: `CAUTION`

Danilo: Maybe people will abuse this by using this feature as opposed to designing a good API.

/// # Pitfalls
///
/// ...
fn forget<T>(t: T);


// PITFALL: ...
forget(..);

Miguel: notes about previous discussions on colored `unsafe` (`unsafe(...)`), as well as `// CAST` etc.

Boqun: could `forget` be `unsafe`?

### `strict_provenance` API

See <https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/> and my discussion with Alice: <https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/>

We should also globally allow <https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#incompatible_msrv>.

### `generate_rust_analyzer.py` needs type hints review

Plz.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/[e-mail]/

## Miscellaneous
<!-- stuff that does not fit into other categories -->