Skip to content
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

Open
pradyunsg opened this issue Oct 26, 2022 · 14 comments
Open

TOML 1.1.0 #928

pradyunsg opened this issue Oct 26, 2022 · 14 comments
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member

I like having issues for tracking releases, to have a single point for discussion.

@pradyunsg pradyunsg added the task label Oct 26, 2022
@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member Author

I think after #924, it'll be a good moment to cut an 1.1.0-rc1.

@arp242
Copy link
Contributor

arp242 commented Oct 26, 2022

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 \e some time ago, but that's about it 😅

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 -toml flag to specify the TOML version, so we can keep it compatible with 1.0 and 1.1 (specified in version.go).

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.

@eksortso
Copy link
Contributor

eksortso commented Oct 27, 2022

On #926, I recommended that we set up a Project here for TOML v1.1.0. (Guess we're just using major.minor for version numbers now?) That would direct attention to the issues and tasks that still need to be done. We had one for v1.0.0 prior to the release candidates. Even if it's small, think it would be worth doing?

By the way, #924 may be split into pieces; I already submitted #929. You may want to move the cutoff.

@pradyunsg pradyunsg changed the title TOML 1.1 TOML 1.1.0 Oct 27, 2022
@ChristianSi
Copy link
Contributor

ChristianSi commented Oct 28, 2022

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:

  • TOML as an RFC? #870: there was already some talk that the 1.1.0 release might be a good starting point for an RFC (if and when we decide we want one), so the release must be done first before this can be tackled.

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:

  • Possible positional restrictions on table definitions #446: @pradyunsg: maybe one could add a "post-1.x" label for this, since it's incompatible with TOML 1.0 and so couldn't ever come before 2.0. Though frankly I think one could just close it, since "You can put tables in any order (except where arrays of tables are involved)" has always been a core element of TOML's philosophy and I don't really see it going away.

@marzer
Copy link
Contributor

marzer commented Oct 28, 2022

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 [sign, exponent, mantissa] triplet, but that's goofy.

@ChristianSi
Copy link
Contributor

ChristianSi commented Oct 29, 2022

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.

@mcarans
Copy link

mcarans commented Jan 10, 2023

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?

@mcarans
Copy link

mcarans commented Apr 3, 2023

I think after #924, it'll be a good moment to cut an 1.1.0-rc1.

@pradyunsg How are things going towards the release candidate?

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member Author

@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.

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member Author

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.

@pradyunsg pradyunsg added this to the 1.1.0-rc0 milestone Apr 7, 2024
@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member Author

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.

@samuelcolvin
Copy link

Any update on the progress of of 1.1.0 being released? Similarly, is there anything we can do to help move things forward?

I'm blocked on something waiting for multiline table support, its release seems tantalisingly close...

@ChristianSi
Copy link
Contributor

@samuelcolvin There's essentially only one thing that's blocking 1.1, and that's #895. Right now TOML has one (or two?) inactive maintainer and one barely active one, and so everything is stuck. @pradyunsg, the last remaining maintainer, now has all the necessary rights to appoint more maintainers, and proposals have been made, but so far he hasn't. So we're stuck.

Whether that'll ever change, and if so, when, only @pradyunsg could answer. Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine, or that of anyone else.

@paulehoffman
Copy link
Contributor

Any news on this would be appreciated. I am hesitant to send developers to the main TOML site because it describes 1.0 and it doesn't even hint at a 1.1, which will have some significant changes to Unicode handling.

@pradyunsg: Is there anything blocking 1.1 that we can help on?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants