Skip to content

Conversation

DJMcNab
Copy link
Contributor

@DJMcNab DJMcNab commented Sep 28, 2025

Tracking issue: #43781

The doc_auto_cfg and doc_cfg_hide features were removed in a recent nightly (by #138907).
I believe that the rustc version numbers at which the features were declared to be removed were incorrect, however, and should both be "1.92" (±1). As evidence in favour of this, the error we get from using this was:

error[E0557]: feature has been removed
  --> src/lib.rs:22:29
   |
22 | #![cfg_attr(docsrs, feature(doc_auto_cfg))]
   |                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^ feature has been removed
   |
   = note: removed in 1.58.0; see <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/138907> for more information
   = note: merged into `doc_cfg`

Note especially the "removed in 1.58" claim. Further evidence is found in the comment further up this file:

// Note that the version indicates when it got *removed*.
// When moving an unstable feature here, set the version number to
// `CURRENT RUSTC VERSION` with ` ` replaced by `_`.
// (But not all features below do this properly; many indicate the
// version they got originally added in.)

I've chosen 1.92 as that was the milestone which #138907 was added to.

cc @GuillaumeGomez

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Sep 28, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 28, 2025

r? @BoxyUwU

rustbot has assigned @BoxyUwU.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@DJMcNab
Copy link
Contributor Author

DJMcNab commented Sep 28, 2025

The tidy check's requirement of using CURRENT_RUSTC_VERSION does now mean that the current version of this PR has a deadline of (whenever the next PR like #146636 is merged). That requirement seems to be not well-formed in this case, but I'm not certain about that.

Procedurally, do I need to now squash this PR? Is there a way to do that from the web, or will I need to clone locally?

Also hey Boxy!

@fmease
Copy link
Member

fmease commented Sep 28, 2025

Thanks! Yes, please squash, then I'll approve.

@fmease
Copy link
Member

fmease commented Sep 28, 2025

whenever the next PR like #146636 is merged

It happens earlier in the release process, namely when beta branches from master (cc https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/process.html#beta-pr). The PR you've linked is a bootstrap bump which just cherry-picks the previously created commit containing the placeholder replacements (cc https://forge.rust-lang.org/release/process.html#default-branch-bootstrap-update-tuesday).

Anyway, there's no rush; it'll take some time till the next beta bump. Both PRs will be part of 1.92, no worries :)

@fmease fmease assigned fmease and unassigned BoxyUwU Sep 28, 2025
@fmease fmease added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 28, 2025
@DJMcNab DJMcNab force-pushed the doc_cfg_merge_version branch from 7062937 to 26a31e2 Compare September 29, 2025 08:40
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Sep 29, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@DJMcNab DJMcNab force-pushed the doc_cfg_merge_version branch from 26a31e2 to 04ee991 Compare September 29, 2025 08:48
@DJMcNab
Copy link
Contributor Author

DJMcNab commented Sep 29, 2025

@rustbot ready

cc @fmease I'm not sure of the process here - I can't request your review because you've never actually "reviewed" this PR

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Sep 29, 2025
@fmease
Copy link
Member

fmease commented Sep 29, 2025

Thanks again! @bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Sep 29, 2025

📌 Commit 04ee991 has been approved by fmease

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Sep 29, 2025
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2025
Rollup of 5 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #146653 (improve diagnostics for empty attributes)
 - #146987 (impl Ord for params and use unstable sort)
 - #147101 (Use `Iterator::eq` and (dogfood) `eq_by` in compiler and library )
 - #147123 (Fix removed version numbers of `doc_auto_cfg` and `doc_cfg_hide`)
 - #147149 (add joboet to library review rotation)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit f2306f3 into rust-lang:master Sep 29, 2025
10 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.92.0 milestone Sep 29, 2025
rust-timer added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2025
Rollup merge of #147123 - DJMcNab:doc_cfg_merge_version, r=fmease

Fix removed version numbers of `doc_auto_cfg` and `doc_cfg_hide`

Tracking issue: #43781

The `doc_auto_cfg` and `doc_cfg_hide` features were removed in a recent nightly (by #138907).
I believe that the rustc version numbers at which the features were declared to be removed were incorrect, however, and should both be "1.92" (±1). As evidence in favour of this, the error we get from using this was:

```text
error[E0557]: feature has been removed
  --> src/lib.rs:22:29
   |
22 | #![cfg_attr(docsrs, feature(doc_auto_cfg))]
   |                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^ feature has been removed
   |
   = note: removed in 1.58.0; see <#138907> for more information
   = note: merged into `doc_cfg`
```

Note especially the "removed in 1.58" claim. Further evidence is found in the comment further up this file: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4ffeda10e10d4fa0c8edbd0dd9642d8ae7d3e66e/compiler/rustc_feature/src/removed.rs#L49-L53

I've chosen 1.92 as that was the milestone which #138907 was added to.

cc `@GuillaumeGomez`
@DJMcNab DJMcNab deleted the doc_cfg_merge_version branch September 29, 2025 15:24
github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/miri that referenced this pull request Sep 30, 2025
Rollup of 5 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang/rust#146653 (improve diagnostics for empty attributes)
 - rust-lang/rust#146987 (impl Ord for params and use unstable sort)
 - rust-lang/rust#147101 (Use `Iterator::eq` and (dogfood) `eq_by` in compiler and library )
 - rust-lang/rust#147123 (Fix removed version numbers of `doc_auto_cfg` and `doc_cfg_hide`)
 - rust-lang/rust#147149 (add joboet to library review rotation)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/rust-analyzer that referenced this pull request Oct 2, 2025
Rollup of 5 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang/rust#146653 (improve diagnostics for empty attributes)
 - rust-lang/rust#146987 (impl Ord for params and use unstable sort)
 - rust-lang/rust#147101 (Use `Iterator::eq` and (dogfood) `eq_by` in compiler and library )
 - rust-lang/rust#147123 (Fix removed version numbers of `doc_auto_cfg` and `doc_cfg_hide`)
 - rust-lang/rust#147149 (add joboet to library review rotation)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants