beta backport PR 51956

[pnkfelix]

This is a dummy issue linking to PR #51956 so that we can have an open issue (which is apparently a requirement if one wants to leverage the rfcbot).

[pnkfelix]

@rfcbot fcp merge

I propose that we approve backporting this to beta.

Since time is somewhat limited, and back ports are usually less controversial than the usual things that go through the fcp process, I'm going to add the additional note if there are no unresolved formal concerns in a week's time, I will just check off any unmarked check boxes. (This effectively inverts the rfcbot into "approved by default.")

---

@oli-obk You had proposed discussing this at a compiler meeting. I assume that such a discussion actually occurred during my absence. If your objection for some reason did not apply to nightly but does apply to beta, I encourage you to issue a formal concern here and hopefully that will prompt further conversation that will let us resolve this.

[rfcbot]

Team member @pnkfelix has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

• @Zoxc
• @cramertj
• @eddyb
• @estebank
• @michaelwoerister
• @nagisa
• @nikomatsakis
• @oli-obk
• @petrochenkov
• @pnkfelix
• @varkor

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[oli-obk]

We did indeed discuss this and I have no objections to backporting this. Quite the opposite. Not backporting would mean some people can't document their code anymore once this hits stable

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔