# Rustdoc team meetings

## next meeting ## 13-10-2025 * (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 * [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) * [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 ## 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  * [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?

Syntax	Example	Reference
# Header	Header	基本排版
- Unordered List	Unordered List
1. Ordered List	Ordered List
- [ ] Todo List	Todo List
> Blockquote	Blockquote
Bold font	Bold font
Italics font	Italics font
~~Strikethrough~~	~~Strikethrough~~
19^th^	19^th
H~2~O	H₂O
++Inserted text++	Inserted text
==Marked text==	Marked text
[link text](https:// "title")	Link
![image alt](https:// "title")	Image
`Code`	`Code`	在筆記中貼入程式碼
```javascript var i = 0; ```	`var i = 0;`
:smile:		Emoji list
{%youtube youtube_id %}	Externals
$L^aT_eX$	L^aT_eX
:::info This is a alert area. :::	This is a alert area.