Skip to content

Update ACP issue template - #870

Open
clarfonthey wants to merge 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
clarfonthey:acp-template
Open

Update ACP issue template#870
clarfonthey wants to merge 1 commit into
rust-lang:mainfrom
clarfonthey:acp-template

Conversation

@clarfonthey

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closes #547.

Also fixes a label change post RFC 3984. Figures that the one repo I forgot to check was this one…

Comment thread .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/api-change-proposal.md
about: Propose an API change for the standard library
title: ''
labels: api-change-proposal, T-libs-api
labels: api-change-proposal

@joshtriplett joshtriplett Aug 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
labels: api-change-proposal
labels: api-change-proposal, T-libs

View changes since the review

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, initially I removed this because "we know it's libs, it's in the libs repo," but then looked at compiler's repo and realised it's for rfcbot integration. So, yes, that makes sense.

- We think this specific solution looks roughly right, approved, you or someone else should implement this. (Further review will still happen on the subsequent implementation PR.)
- We're not sure this is the right solution, and the alternatives or other materials don't give us enough information to be sure about that. Here are some questions we have that aren't answered, or rough ideas about alternatives we'd want to see discussed.

If we do think an API is worth implementing, we'll add the `ACP-accepted` label to your issue, at which point a [tracking issue] on the `rust-lang/rust` repository should be opened. Once the tracking issue exists, we'll close the issue as completed.

@joshtriplett joshtriplett Aug 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
If we do think an API is worth implementing, we'll add the `ACP-accepted` label to your issue, at which point a [tracking issue] on the `rust-lang/rust` repository should be opened. Once the tracking issue exists, we'll close the issue as completed.
If we do think an API is worth implementing, we'll add the `ACP-accepted` label to your issue, at which point you should open a [tracking issue] on the `rust-lang/rust` repository. Once the tracking issue exists, you can close the issue as completed.

View changes since the review


[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/new?assignees=&labels=C-tracking-issue%2C+T-libs&template=library_tracking_issue.md&title=Tracking+Issue+for+XXX

In general, we prefer that authors close their own ACPs instead of the team rejecting them, since generally, the solution to a problem is "not now/differently," not "never, in no possible way." However, if an ACP ends up being merged in some other form (e.g. a similar one is accepted) or an ACP cannot be done without breaking stability guarantees, we may close it for that reason.

@joshtriplett joshtriplett Aug 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think that we should have a framing like this on the ACP template, such that it shows up in every issue. Having a mention of how we close issues as the last thing someone sees in the template seems like it sets the wrong tone.

View changes since the review

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, honestly, you're kind of right, and I think maybe we should also move some of this into a forge policy instead of being in the template itself.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Change ACP process to track unimplemented ACPs

3 participants