Mark Ipv4Addr is_unspecified as stable and provide reference. #34739
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @brson (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
Thanks for the PR @therealbstern! Currently though the way the libs team handles stabilizations is to do so with a "final comment period" where we have an entire cycle to discuss whether an API should be stable or not. We'll actually nominate this coming Monday the set of APIs we'd like to see stabilized in 1.12. Along those lines I've made sure to nominate the relevant issue (so we'll see it), and could you back out the changes to the stability tag here? Other than that the doc change looks good to me to merge! |
|
Done and done. Thank you! |
|
Could you also squash the commits together? |
|
Also, out of curiosity, is there any online sources of this information we could link to as well? |
|
I put in a link to man7. I didn't squash because I've already pushed to github, so it's rejecting the squashing. Should I close this PR and open a new one, or leave it as is? BTW, the documentation (and the welcome message from rust-highfive) implies not to squash. Is this incorrect? |
|
@therealbstern You should be able to push the squashed branch to your repo with |
|
Thanks for the hint about -f -- squashed. |
Mark Ipv4Addr is_unspecified as stable and provide reference. Per [#27709 (comment)](#27709 (comment)), no RFC is needed here. IPv4 "unspecified" has been defined in [Stevens], and has been part of the IPv4 stack for quite some time. This property should become stable, since this use of 0.0.0.0 is not going anywhere. [Stevens][_UNIX Network Programming Volume 1, Second Edition_. Stevens, W. Richard. Prentice-Hall, 1998. p. 891] Please let me know if I got the rustdoc wrong or something. I tried to be as terse as possible while still conveying the appropriate information. This also has a slight impact on PR #34694, but that one came first, so this shouldn't block it, IMO.
Per #27709 (comment), no RFC is needed here.
IPv4 "unspecified" has been defined in [Stevens], and has been part of the IPv4 stack for quite some time. This property should become stable, since this use of 0.0.0.0 is not going anywhere.
[Stevens][UNIX Network Programming Volume 1, Second Edition. Stevens, W. Richard. Prentice-Hall, 1998. p. 891]
Please let me know if I got the rustdoc wrong or something. I tried to be as terse as possible while still conveying the appropriate information.
This also has a slight impact on PR #34694, but that one came first, so this shouldn't block it, IMO.