Third-party and out-of-tree crates
This document describe the guidelines for creating out-of-tree crates for use in the compiler and using third-party crates within the compiler. These guidelines were originally discussed at the Rust All Hands 2019 by the compiler team and others; and then at the 01/03/2019 steering meeting.
One of the primary goals of this policy is to ensure that there is consistency in how out-of-tree
crates used in the compiler are set up (at least, those maintained by the compiler team and living
rust-lang) and that the experience is uniform across
rust-lang/rust and these crates.
When should parts of the compiler be extracted into an out-of-tree crate?
This is left to the discretion of compiler team members but should be discussed with the rest of the team, either through raising the question at the weekly triage meeting or asynchronously using an FCP in an issue. If the crate is a product of a working group, there should already be agreement within the working group that an out-of-tree crate is suitable.
When considering creating an out-of-tree crate, it is worth balancing how general the crate should be with the increased maintenance burden that this may bring if widely used.
Where should compiler crates live?
Out-of-tree compiler crates should be hosted in the
rust-lang organization - this simplifies
integration with external infrastructure tooling and will inherit existing team permissions on
GitHub. It should be made clear in any documentation that the compiler team and any appropriate
working groups are responsible for the crate. It is not recommended to start with a prototype in
another organization or personal repository.
Can existing out-of-tree crates from personal accounts or other organizations be transferred?
Yes, this is encouraged. In order to do this, discuss this with the team and familiarize yourself with the GitHub documentation for repository transfers and then arrange to perform the transfer. Once a transfer is complete, a redirect will exist in the original account or organization and this will conflict with the names of any new forks of the transferred repository - an email to GitHub is required to resolve this.
Who owns these crates?
It is desired that a compiler team member or working group has loose ownership over a crate so that there are clear owners who are responsible for making sure that new versions are published and that pull requests are reviewed.
What should these crates be named?
Crate naming will be discussed when new out-of-tree crates are proposed to the compiler team.
Crate naming will differ on a case-by-case basis. Crates that are inherently tied to the
compiler would benefit from a name that is prefixed with
rustc_. This is an indicator of how
stable the crate may be to prospective users. Other crates, which are more general-purpose, will
have names that are disentangled from the compiler.
Are there any limitations on the review policy for out-of-tree crates?
Generally, the working groups and team members that are primarily free to maintain the crate using whatever practices are best suited to their group, however, there are some limitations so that there is some uniformity across the compiler and out-of-tree crates:
- Everyone with r+ on
rust-lang/rustshould be able to review and approve PRs.
- Where possible, only active participants in the crate (or related working group) need be on the highfive rotation for the crate.
- It is fine to have additional reviewers on the crate who do not otherwise have r+ for Rust as a whole, if those reviewers are actively involved in the working group or crate maintenance.
- Major pull requests should have multiple reviewers.
What is required of an out-of-tree crate?
It is required that out-of-tree crates must:
- Be dual-licensed with Apache 2.0 and MIT when maintained by the compiler team (as the compiler
is) unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
- If another license is desired, this must be brought up when proposing the new crate for compiler team members to agree. Prefer licenses accepted by tidy, unless otherwise required (ports of code from other projects, etc).
- Abide by Rust’s code of conduct.
- Specify that the crate is maintained by the Rust compiler team and any appropriate working groups.
- In particular, this should detail the expected level of maintenance and stability for any prospective users.
- This should also link to the working group details in this repository.
- Be added to the list at the bottom of this page.
- Follow semantic versioning.
- Use labels that are compatible with the existing triage process. This will allow nominated issues
in your out-of-tree crate to be discussed during triage meetings.
I-nominated(a full list is to be decided)
Is there a requirement for community infrastructure for an out-of-tree crate?
There is no requirement that community infrastructure (such as Zulip servers/streams) be created for out-of-tree crates. This may be desirable if an out-of-tree crate gains a large community of contributors and users, but otherwise, the working group or compiler team streams should be used initially.
Linkifiers for auto-linking to issues and PRs on the primary Rust Zulip server can be added on request.
Are there any recommendations for working with out-of-tree crates?
Recommendations for working with out-of-tree crates will be documented in the rustc-dev-guide (see rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide#285 for progress).
How should stabilization/semantic changes be handled in out-of-tree crates?
It is important to involve the language team in any changes in out-of-tree crates that would result
in stabilization or semantic changes to the language. Submodule changes in PRs to
should be labelled appropriately (eg.
T-lang) just as if the change
were implemented in
rust-lang/rust directly, include a description of the changes when it is not
obvious to those unfamiliar with the compiler or the out-of-tree crate.
In summary, the process for establishing an out-of-tree crate is as follows:
Where appropriate, discuss and confirm the need within the working group for the out-of-tree crate.
Create a PR modifying this document to include the crate in the list below. Use
@rfcbot mergeto gain agreement from compiler team members.
Create a new repository in the
Settings > Collaborators & Teamsand add the
Compilerteam with write privileges and
- Individuals that are not part of the team can be added where appropriate.
Add a README describing the intended purpose of the crate, which team and working group are responsible (link to their page in this repository) and the intended level of maintenance and stability.
This crate is developed and maintained by the Rust compiler team for use within
rustc, in particular, it is the responsibility of the
.templateworking group. This crate [will have regular breaking changes and provides no stability guarantees|is intended to remain stable and have limited breaking changes].
Include the LICENSE-APACHE and LICENSE-MIT files from
Include or link the CODE_OF_CONDUCT file from
Create a relevant
.gitignore(here’s a sane default).
Consult with the infrastructure team to set up
@rust-highfiveand a process for publishing under the “The Rust Project Developers” crates.io account.
- Add a basic
language: rust rust: - stable
@borsis not normally used for out-of-tree crates, GitHub’s built-in merge facilities can be used instead.
- Add a basic
Perform any initial development required before integration with rustc.
Publish initial version, following semantic versioning.
Add the crate as a dependency to the appropriate in-tree crate and start using.
It is sometimes desirable to use the functionality of an existing third-party crate in the compiler.
When can a third-party crate be added as a compiler dependency?
It is desirable that a third-party crate being included in the compiler is well-maintained and that, where possible, a compiler team member is added as a maintainer. You should consult with the rest of the compiler team before making this decision.
What about third-party dependencies to out-of-tree crates?
The same policies apply to all compiler-team-maintained crates used in the compiler.
List of out-of-tree crates
This section contains the list of existing out-of-tree, compiler team-maintained crates: