These frequently have links to comments on closed PRs, meaning it can
looks like issues have been resolved even if that isn't the case. Add
checkboxes to make it more clear when a conclusion has been reached.
Most new API has an associated ACP that is useful to reference, but it
doesn't appear anywhere on the template for new tracking issues. Update
this template to include a link to the ACP.
rustdoc has its own issue template now, mention that.
swap the order of the last two sentances so it reads more like
a typical if/else chain (base case listed last).
adjust some labels and descriptions
Inspired by some of the communication issues around the stabilization of
`let`-chains, give more fine-grained information about the status of
updating style for any new syntax.
This does not change the process or blockers in any way; it only
*documents* the current state in the tracking issue. For instance, in
the case of `let`-chains, we would have checked the boxes for "Style
team decision" and "(non-blocking) Formatting has been implemented", and
not checked the box for the style guide. That would have then provided
better supporting information for any decisions.
Update library tracking issue template to set S-tracking-unimplemented
This will help people notice the `S-tracking-*` labels, and if the
tracking issue *is* implemented, they can change the label.
Discussed in a `@rust-lang/libs-api` meeting.
r? `@Amanieu`
* Existing compilers link to the md version
* The YAML version field for the backtrace *doesn't let us paste a full backtrace*
* We will need the YAML version in order to be able to submit reports once we start storing the backtrace to disk
Each label needs to be separated by a comma (see the ICE issue template
for an example of correct usage).
As a result of this problem, the `regression-untriaged` label has not
been automatically added to issues opened with this template.
See c127530be7 for another example of this.
Trevor Gross