From 3ff3abefd96862046484541f63a19376d3203c0a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Felix S Klock II Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 11:33:23 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Link from "implementing to new features" to mcp.md [A discussion on zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/-Zinline-llvm/near/297903037) led pnkfelix to conclude that it would be good to publicize MCP's a bit more. --- src/implementing_new_features.md | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/src/implementing_new_features.md b/src/implementing_new_features.md index 36799a2d3..9147c1b41 100644 --- a/src/implementing_new_features.md +++ b/src/implementing_new_features.md @@ -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 compiler development or standard library use, as long as you don't 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, but it is generally a good idea to have at least a proof