Renaming Hexagon Targets In Rust Compiler: A Proposal For Simplified Naming

Hey guys! Today, we're diving into a proposal to streamline the naming conventions for Hexagon targets within the Rust compiler. Specifically, we're talking about renaming hexagon-unknown-linux-musl and hexagon-unknown-none-elf. This is a pretty important step in making Rust more user-friendly and consistent across different platforms. So, let's break down the proposal, the rationale behind it, and what it means for the future of Rust on Hexagon.

The Proposal: Simplifying Target Names

The core of the proposal is straightforward: let's make the target names cleaner and more intuitive. Currently, we have two Hexagon targets that could use some love:

• hexagon-unknown-linux-musl should become hexagon-linux-musl
• hexagon-unknown-none-elf should become hexagon-none-elf

The idea here is to ditch the unknown vendor element, which, in many contexts, is implied. This small change can make a big difference in readability and ease of use, especially for developers who are new to the Rust ecosystem or to Hexagon development.

Why This Matters: Rationale Behind the Rename

So, why bother with this change? Well, it all boils down to simplifying target names. In the world of software development, clarity is king. The current names, while technically accurate, are a bit verbose. By removing the unknown element, we're making the names shorter, easier to remember, and less cluttered. This is especially crucial for targets like these, which, while important, might not be as widely used as, say, x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.

Think of it this way: when you're working on a project, you want to focus on the code, not on deciphering cryptic target names. A cleaner naming scheme reduces cognitive load and helps you stay in the zone. Plus, it aligns with the general principle of keeping things simple unless there's a compelling reason to make them complex.

The Vendor Element: When It Matters

Now, you might be wondering, “What about the vendor? Isn't that important?” And you'd be right! The vendor element is important, but it's not always necessary to include it explicitly. In this case, the unknown vendor implies that these are generic, un-vendored targets. However, there's a crucial caveat:

If either of these targets becomes vendored in the future, we'll need to explicitly name the vendor. This could mean adding a new target (e.g., hexagon-vendor-linux-musl) or, if appropriate, replacing the un-vendored target altogether.

This approach gives us flexibility. For now, we can keep the names clean and simple. But if a specific vendor steps in and wants to provide a custom version of the target, we can easily accommodate that without breaking existing code.

Strategic Timing: Why Now?

Timing is everything, right? And in this case, the timing is perfect. These Hexagon targets are currently Tier 3, meaning they have limited support and usage within the Rust ecosystem. This is a good thing because it means we can make this change now with minimal disruption.

These tier 3 targets see somewhat narrow Rust use so far and it makes sense to change the names now before we take effort to promote them to higher tiers.

Imagine trying to rename a target that's already widely used! It would be a nightmare of compatibility issues and broken builds. By addressing this now, before these targets gain more traction, we're saving ourselves a lot of headaches down the road. It's like fixing a small crack in the foundation before it turns into a major structural problem.

Mentors and Reviewers: Ensuring a Smooth Transition

Of course, any change to the Rust compiler needs careful consideration and review. That's why the proposal suggests involving mentors and reviewers who are knowledgeable about the area. In this case, @tgross35 is mentioned as a potential mentor/reviewer. Having experienced folks involved helps ensure that the change is implemented correctly and that any potential issues are identified and addressed early on. This collaborative approach is a hallmark of the Rust community, and it's what helps us build a robust and reliable language.

The Process: Navigating the Major Change Proposal (MCP)

So, how does a proposal like this actually become a reality? It goes through a process called the Major Change Proposal (MCP). The MCP is a well-defined procedure that ensures significant changes to the Rust compiler are carefully considered, discussed, and implemented.

The main steps of the MCP are:

1. File an issue: This is where the proposal is formally introduced. It outlines the problem, the proposed solution, and the rationale behind it. You're reading about it right now!
2. Second the proposal: A compiler team member who knows the area needs to “second” the proposal. This signals that the proposal is worth considering and moves it to the next stage. This can be done by writing @rustbot second or kickoff a team FCP with @rfcbot fcp $RESOLUTION.
   • The decision of whether a second is sufficient, or a full team Final Comment Period (FCP) is required depends on the scope and impact of the change. Refer to the Proposals, Approvals and Stabilization docs for guidance.
3. Final Comment Period (FCP): Once the proposal is seconded, the FCP begins. This is a 10-day period where the community can raise any final concerns or objections. It's a crucial opportunity for everyone to weigh in and make sure the change is the right one for Rust.
   • The FCP lasts for 10 days after all outstanding concerns are resolved. If new concerns are raised during the FCP, the clock resets. This ensures that all issues are thoroughly addressed.
   • If no concerns are raised after 10 days, the MCP is considered approved. 🎉

You can dive deeper into the MCP process and its intricacies by checking out the Major Change Proposals on forge.

Understanding the FCP: A Closer Look

The Final Comment Period (FCP) is a critical stage in the MCP. It's the last chance for the community to voice any reservations or suggest improvements before the change is implemented. Think of it as the final quality control check before a new feature or change makes its way into Rust.

During the FCP, the community scrutinizes the proposal, looking for potential drawbacks, edge cases, or alternative solutions. This is where discussions can get intense, but that's a good thing! It means people care about Rust and want to make sure it's the best it can be.

The FCP clock only starts ticking once all outstanding concerns have been addressed. This is a key point. If someone raises a valid concern, the FCP is paused until that concern is resolved. This ensures that no issue is swept under the rug and that everyone has a chance to be heard.

Once all concerns are resolved, the 10-day countdown begins. If, after 10 days, no new concerns have been raised, the MCP is considered approved. It's like a sigh of relief for everyone involved! The proposal has been thoroughly vetted and is ready to be implemented.

Outstanding Concerns: The Hurdles to Approval

Outstanding concerns are the roadblocks on the path to MCP approval. They're the questions, doubts, or objections that need to be addressed before the change can move forward. These concerns can range from minor clarifications to major design flaws.

Addressing outstanding concerns is a collaborative process. It often involves discussions, brainstorming, and even revisions to the original proposal. The goal is to find solutions that satisfy everyone involved and ensure that the final change is the best possible one for Rust.

Outstanding concerns block the FCP from finishing. This is a deliberate mechanism to prevent changes from being rushed through without proper consideration. It forces the community to engage in meaningful dialogue and find common ground.

Once all concerns are resolved, the 10-day FCP countdown restarts. This provides a clear signal that the proposal is nearing approval and gives the community one last chance to raise any red flags.

Conclusion: A Step Towards a More User-Friendly Rust

In conclusion, this proposal to rename the hexagon-unknown-{none-elf,linux-musl} targets is a small but significant step towards making Rust more user-friendly and consistent. By simplifying the target names, we're reducing cognitive load and making it easier for developers to work with Rust on Hexagon. The MCP process ensures that this change is carefully considered and implemented, and the involvement of mentors and reviewers adds an extra layer of quality control.

So, what do you guys think? Do you agree with the proposal? Are there any potential drawbacks that we haven't considered? Let's continue the discussion and make sure this change is the right one for Rust's future! Remember, the beauty of Rust lies not only in its technical capabilities but also in the strength of its community. Your voice matters! Let's work together to make Rust even better.

This is just one small step in the journey of making Rust the best language it can be. Stay tuned for more updates and proposals, and keep contributing to the amazing Rust community! 🦀