issue_130_7 updated with review comments

Author: Rajkumar Natarajan

src/SUMMARY.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
     - [Adding new tests](./tests/adding.md)
     - [Using `compiletest` + commands to control test execution](./compiletest.md)
 - [Walkthrough: a typical contribution](./walkthrough.md)
-- [Implementing new features](./implementing_new_feature.md)
+- [Implementing new features](./implementing_new_features.md)
 - [Stabilizing Features](./stabilization_guide.md)
 - [Debugging the Compiler](./compiler-debugging.md)
 - [Profiling the compiler](./profiling.md)

src/implementing_new_feature.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+# Implement New Feature
+
+When you want to implement a new significant feature in the compiler,
+you need to go through this process to make sure everything goes
+smoothly.
+
+## The @rfcbot (p)FCP process
+
+When the change is small and uncontroversial, then it can be done
+with just writing a PR and getting r+ from someone who knows that
+part of the code. However, if the change is potentially controversial,
+it would be a bad idea to push it without consensus from the rest
+of the team (both in the "distributed system" sense to make sure
+you don't break anything you don't know about, and in the social
+sense to avoid PR fights).
+
+If such a change seems to be too small to require a full formal RFC
+process (e.g. a big refactoring of the code, or a
+"technically-breaking" change, or a "big bugfix" that basically
+amounts to a small feature) but is still too controversial or
+big to get by with a single r+, you can start a pFCP (or, if you
+don't have r+ rights, ask someone who has them to start one - and
+unless they have a concern themselves, they should).
+
+Again, the pFCP process is only needed if you need consensus - if you
+don't think anyone would have a problem with your change, it's ok to
+get by with only an r+. For example, it is OK to add or modify
+unstable command-line flags or attributes without an pFCP for
+compiler development or standard library use, as long as you don't
+expect them to be in wide use in the nightly ecosystem.
+
+You don't need to have the implementation fully ready for r+ to ask
+for a pFCP, but it is generally a good idea to have at least a proof
+of concept so that people can see what you are talking about.
+
+That starts a "proposed final comment period" (pFCP), which requires
+all members of the team to sign off the FCP. After they all do so,
+there's a week long "final comment period" where everybody can comment,
+and if no new concerns are raised, the PR/issue gets FCP approval.
+
+## The logistics of writing features
+
+There are a few "logistic" hoops you might need to go through in
+order to implement a feature in a working way.
+
+### Warning Cycles
+
+In some cases, a feature or bugfix might break some existing programs
+in some edge cases. In that case, you might want to do a crater run
+to assess the impact and possibly add a future-compatibility lint,
+similar to those used for
+[edition-gated lints](./diag.md#edition-gated-lints).
+
+### Stability
+
+We [value the stability of Rust]. Code that works and runs on stable
+should (mostly) not break. Because of that, we don't want to release
+a feature to the world with only team consensus and code review -
+we want to gain real-world experience on using that feature on nightly,
+and we might want to change the feature based on that experience.
+
+To allow for that, we must make sure users don't accidentally depend
+on that new feature - otherwise, especially if experimentation takes
+time or is delayed and the feature takes the trains to stable,
+it would end up de facto stable and we'll not be able to make changes
+in it without breaking people's code.
+
+The way we do that is that we make sure all new features are feature
+gated - they can't be used without a enabling a feature gate
+`(#[feature(foo)])`, which can't be done in a stable/beta compiler.
+See the [stability in code] section for the technical details.
+
+Eventually, after we gain enough experience using the feature,
+make the necessary changes, and are satisfied, we expose it to
+the world using the stabilization process described [here].
+Until then, the feature is not set in stone: every part of the
+feature can be changed, or the feature might be completely
+rewritten or removed. Features are not supposed to gain tenure
+by being unstable and unchanged for a year.
+
+### Tracking Issues
+
+To keep track of the status of an unstable feature, the
+experience we get while using it on nightly, and of the
+concerns that block its stabilization, every feature-gate
+needs a tracking issue.
+
+General discussions about the feature should be done on
+the tracking issue.
+
+For features that have an RFC, you should use the RFC's
+tracking issue for the feature.
+
+For other features, you'll have to make a tracking issue
+for that feature. The issue title should be "Tracking issue
+for YOUR FEATURE".
+
+For tracking issues for features (as opposed to future-compat
+warnings), I don't think the description has to contain
+anything specific. Generally we put the list of items required
+for stabilization using a github list, e.g.
+
+```txt
+    **Steps:**
+
+    - [ ] Implement the RFC (cc @rust-lang/compiler -- can anyone write up mentoring instructions?)
+    - [ ] Adjust documentation ([see instructions on forge][doc-guide])
+    - Note: no stabilization step here.
+```
+
+## Stability in code
+
+The below steps needs to be followed in order to implement
+a new unstable feature:
+
+1. Open a [tracking issue] - if you have an RFC, you can use
+   the tracking issue for the RFC.
+
+2. Pick a name for the feature gate (for RFCs, use the name
+   in the RFC).
+
+3. Add a feature gate declaration to `libsyntax/feature_gate.rs`
+   in the active `declare_features` block:
+
+```rust,ignore
+    // description of feature
+    (active, $feature_name, "$current_nightly_version", Some($tracking_issue_number), $edition)
+```
+
+where `$edition` has the type `Option<Edition>`, and is typically
+just `None`.
+
+For example:
+
+```rust,ignore
+    // allow '|' at beginning of match arms (RFC 1925)
+(   active, match_beginning_vert, "1.21.0", Some(44101), None),
+```
+
+The current version is not actually important – the important
+version is when you are stabilizing a feature.
+
+4. Prevent usage of the new feature unless the feature gate is set.
+   You can check it in most places in the compiler using the
+   expression `tcx.features().$feature_name` (or
+   `sess.features_untracked().borrow().$feature_name` if the
+   tcx is unavailable)
+
+    If the feature gate is not set, you should either maintain
+    the pre-feature behavior or raise an error, depending on
+    what makes sense.
+
+5. Add a test to ensure the feature cannot be used without
+   a feature gate, by creating `feature-gate-$feature_name.rs`
+   and `feature-gate-$feature_name.stderr` files under the
+   `src/test/ui/feature-gates` directory.
+
+6. Add a section to the unstable book, in
+   `src/doc/unstable-book/src/language-features/$feature_name.md`.
+
+7. Write a lots of tests for the new feature.
+   PRs without tests will not be accepted!
+
+8. Get your PR reviewed and land it. You have now successfully
+   implemented a feature in Rust!
+
+[value the stability of Rust]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1122-language-semver.md
+[stability in code]:
+[here]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rustc-guide/stabilization_guide.html
+[tracking issue]: