Link from "implementing to new features" to mcp.md (#1465)
This commit is contained in:
parent
cf7c209ce2
commit
00db68b612
|
|
@ -28,6 +28,12 @@ get by with only an r+. For example, it is OK to add or modify
|
||||||
unstable command-line flags or attributes without an FCP for
|
unstable command-line flags or attributes without an FCP for
|
||||||
compiler development or standard library use, as long as you don't
|
compiler development or standard library use, as long as you don't
|
||||||
expect them to be in wide use in the nightly ecosystem.
|
expect them to be in wide use in the nightly ecosystem.
|
||||||
|
Some teams have lighter weight processes that they use in scenarios
|
||||||
|
like this; for example, the compiler team recommends
|
||||||
|
filing a Major Change Proposal ([MCP][mcp]) as a lightweight way to
|
||||||
|
garner support and feedback without requiring full consensus.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[mcp]: compiler/mcp.md#public-facing-changes-require-rfcbot-fcp
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
You don't need to have the implementation fully ready for r+ to propose an FCP,
|
You don't need to have the implementation fully ready for r+ to propose an FCP,
|
||||||
but it is generally a good idea to have at least a proof
|
but it is generally a good idea to have at least a proof
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue