New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
TOML 1.1.0 #928
Comments
I think after #924, it'll be a good moment to cut an 1.1.0-rc1. |
Edit 2023-06-03: all of this is now done. I think it would be nice to also update the toml-test to TOML 1.1; I added a test for There are two parts to this; the first is updating https://github.com/burntSushi/toml to support TOML 1.1, which is needed because toml-test uses it. This is just something I need to spend a bit of time on; I don't expect that will be too difficult. The second part is actually adding tests for TOML 1.1, for both valid and invalid edge cases, and this is something people here can help out with. This also requires identifying some of the "invalid" tests that are now "valid"; I added a At any rate, if people feel interested to spend some time on thinking of test cases and making a PR then that'd be appreciated. |
On #926, I recommended that we set up a Project here for TOML v1.1.0. By the way, #924 may be split into pieces; I already submitted #929. You may want to move the cutoff. |
I've tried doing a little triage regarding all open issues and PRs, to see whether and how urgently they should become part of 1.1.0. Here's the result: Should definitively be included (in some way or other):
To be decided whether we include them:
Not essential, but would be nice to have:
To be started afterwards:
New syntax or features that are probably beyond the scope of TOML 1.1 (if they ever come):
Definitively beyond the scope of any TOML 1.x release, since it would be a breaking change:
|
I really would like #562 to be included in the next version. We mandate that 'reals' be IEEE754 binary64 floating-point, but we have no way of expressing the full range of those exactly in a TOML document, and sometimes you need to do just that. Of course an application can ask users to express this as a |
I'd also second @awvwgk's proposal to do a RC candidate first (once everything seems taken care of) – announce it widely, what for 2 months to see if anything comes up and if that's not the case (beyond typofixes and such), release 1.1 final after the 2 months. If not, release RC-2 and iterate. That's how we did it with 1.0, and it seems to have worked well enough. |
Now that what is under "Should definitively be included (in some way or other)" is merged, what is the process to decide for the ones under "To be decided whether we include them" in this comment? |
@pradyunsg How are things going towards the release candidate? |
You can see this by looking at the milestone @mcarans -- https://github.com/toml-lang/toml/milestone/1. |
The way I've got things scoped out for 1.1.0 is that we'll have to resolve the unicode keys question and move forward with rc1. I don't plan to add any more new syntax/data type in TOML 1.1.0. https://github.com/toml-lang/toml/milestone/1 has the issues that I intend to "definitely close out" on that topic, after which it's going to be the mechanics of cutting a new TOML release. |
Of course, immediately after I post that, I notice that there's also some disucussion about the changes to comment's permitted control characters so added that into the milestone as well. |
I like having issues for tracking releases, to have a single point for discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: