Reword unstable fingerprints ICE to ask for reproduction#147830
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Oct 22, 2025
Merged
Reword unstable fingerprints ICE to ask for reproduction#147830bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
When the unstable finterprint error was added, Rust was on fire, and we needed a quick way for people to sort of understand what's going on, follow the tracking issue, and leave some information without overwhelming the issue tracker and focusing on getting their code working. This is what motivated the previous message. It called this a "known issue", provided help on how to fix it, and only secondarily asked for a bug report. This is no longer true. These days incremental compilation is fairly solid and these issues are supposed to be rare, we expect *none* of them to exist (but obviously know that's not true). As such, it's time to reword this message. Recently someone mentioned how they didn't bother reporting this issue because it said that it was a "known issue", and I only got awareness of their problem because they complained about all the rustc-ice files hanging around their directories. This is not at all what we want, we want reports from people, ideally with a reproduction. To get this, I reworded the error. It now explicitly asks for a reproduction (and explaining what that means) and no longer calls it a "known issue". It also does not link to the tracking issue anymore, because I don't think this tracking issue is useful. It should probably be closed. I still mention the workaround, but explicitly call it a "workaround". People should report a reproduction and only *then* use the workaround.
Collaborator
Member
Author
|
We now get |
Member
|
Reasonable. r=me tomorrow (in case someone sees this and feels like the need to bikeshed) |
Member
Author
|
@bors r=jackh726 |
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 2025
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #145617 (docs(style): Specify the frontmatter style) - #147830 (Reword unstable fingerprints ICE to ask for reproduction) - #147988 (Remove unused field `style` from `AttributeKind::CrateName`) - #147990 (Fix invalid jump to def link generated on derive attributes) - #147991 ([rustdoc] Check `doc(cfg())` even of private/hidden items) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 2025
Rollup merge of #147830 - Noratrieb:reword-unstable-fingerprint-ice, r=jackh726 Reword unstable fingerprints ICE to ask for reproduction When the unstable fingerprints error was added, Rust was on fire, and we needed a quick way for people to sort of understand what's going on, follow the tracking issue, and leave some information without overwhelming the issue tracker and focusing on getting their code working. This is what motivated the previous message. It called this a "known issue", provided help on how to fix it, and only secondarily asked for a bug report. This is no longer true. These days incremental compilation is fairly solid and these issues are supposed to be rare, we expect *none* of them to exist (but obviously know that's not true). As such, it's time to reword this message. Recently someone mentioned how they didn't bother reporting this issue because it said that it was a "known issue", and I only got awareness of their problem because they complained about all the rustc-ice files hanging around their directories (#147825 (comment)). This is not at all what we want, we want reports from people, ideally with a reproduction. To get this, I reworded the error. It now explicitly asks for a reproduction (and explaining what that means) and no longer calls it a "known issue". It also does not link to the tracking issue anymore, because I don't think this tracking issue is useful. It should probably be closed. I still mention the workaround, but explicitly call it a "workaround". People should report a reproduction and only *then* use the workaround.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When the unstable fingerprints error was added, Rust was on fire, and we needed a quick way for people to sort of understand what's going on, follow the tracking issue, and leave some information without overwhelming the issue tracker and focusing on getting their code working.
This is what motivated the previous message. It called this a "known issue", provided help on how to fix it, and only secondarily asked for a bug report.
This is no longer true. These days incremental compilation is fairly solid and these issues are supposed to be rare, we expect none of them to exist (but obviously know that's not true). As such, it's time to reword this message.
Recently someone mentioned how they didn't bother reporting this issue because it said that it was a "known issue", and I only got awareness of their problem because they complained about all the rustc-ice files hanging around their directories (#147825 (comment)). This is not at all what we want, we want reports from people, ideally with a reproduction.
To get this, I reworded the error. It now explicitly asks for a reproduction (and explaining what that means) and no longer calls it a "known issue". It also does not link to the tracking issue anymore, because I don't think this tracking issue is useful. It should probably be closed.
I still mention the workaround, but explicitly call it a "workaround". People should report a reproduction and only then use the workaround.