Sure, that's my point! Nowhere here am I attempting to argue that the rustup change *here* was handled correctly. But I am saying that stability policies are really nuanced and you actually have to spend time coming up with one, not just handwave "we are stable".
*and I'm saying* that "don't break CI" does not make a useful stability policy that I think Rust can meaningfully evolve with. You can have a more nuanced thing around what types of CI breakage are okay, but again, you have to spend time coming up with it
currently the only tools with an explicit stability policy are clippy and rustc, even cargo doesn't have one, though with cargo there's definitely a generally agreed-upon but unwritten notion of what is and isn't okay at least amongst team members
Comments
I'm sure that'll never blow up in everyone's faces in a public and dramatic fashion