rfcs: add move_itm_crate

[tmplt]

As discussed in the Matrix chat (from 2021-11-31--2021-12-01) here is an RFC proposing the disown/move of the itm crate and repo for continued development outside of the WG.

Rendered RFC

[jonathanpallant]

Thank you for the RFC. I'd be happy move ahead with this, but let's hear from the other @rust-embedded/tools members.

[Emilgardis]

LGTM!

[jonathanpallant]

Just linking the voting rules here: https://github.com/rust-embedded/wg/blob/master/rfcs/0206-voting-majority.md.

The team is:

• @adamgreig
• @burrbull
• @Emilgardis
• @reitermarkus
• @ryankurte
• @therealprof
• @thejpster / @jonathanpallant

[adamgreig]

The itm crate is part of the @rust-embedded/cortex-m team, not tools, i.e.

• @adamgreig
• @therealprof
• @thejpster / @jonathanpallant
• @thalesfragoso

I'll review this once I'm home later this evening.

[jonathanpallant]

Oops. That is unexpected ... but correct.

[tmplt]

For sake of transparency: if and when this goes though the repository will be moved to https://github.com/rtic-scope/itm (updated repo already available; so only the crates.io registery entry is necessary at this point) because of its design towards RTIC Scope. I'll amend the RFC if required.

[adamgreig]

I have a slight preference to not abandon itm and rather encourage its development by new contributors inside the WG, but a stronger preference that it gets developed at all, so on balance I'm in favour here. I look forward to welcoming the crate back one day!

@thalesfragoso, any thoughts?

[thalesfragoso]

Sorry for taking too long, I've been a bit busy...

Anyways, isn't it better to just move ownership of the crate's name and archive rust-embedded/itm (with a link to rtic-scope/itm) ?

I would also like that a new published version of itm to be semver incompatible with the current one and to have a note in the README stating that an ownership transfer happened.

Thanks for the work @tmplt and sorry for being a drag...

[tmplt]

would also like that a new published version of itm to be semver incompatible with the current one

A v0.4.0 has been tagged and is queued for publication. A note can be added to the README.md sure, but do we do anything with the previous releases? Do we pull them?

[adamgreig]

Anyways, isn't it better to just move ownership of the crate's name and archive rust-embedded/itm (with a link to rtic-scope/itm) ?

I'd be fine with this approach too, I guess you're right and there might not be much point transferring this repo only to merge a PR that essentially replaces all the code. We could archive this one for reference in the future and just allow the new crate to be published as a semver-incompatible version on top. What do you think @tmplt?

do we do anything with the previous releases? Do we pull them?

I don't think there's any need to pull them. It won't do anything to current users anyway, and it's not like there's some security issue in the older versions.

[tmplt]

We could archive this one for reference in the future and just allow the new crate to be published as a semver-incompatible version on top. What do you think?

Sounds good to me. But what is a semver-incompatible version? A release above 0.3.X?

[adamgreig]

But what is a semver-incompatible version? A release above 0.3.X?

Yes, 0.4.0 would be fine.

[tmplt]

Should the RFC be amended with the following:

• archive rust-embedded/itm with a deprecation notice instead of moving it; and
• only move the itm crates.io registery ownership?

[therealprof]

Should the RFC be amended with the following:

• archive rust-embedded/itm with a deprecation notice instead of moving it; and

Clarifying what disown means would be useful.

• only move the itm crates.io registery ownership?

It's already there (twice), no? https://github.com/rust-embedded/wg/pull/589/files#diff-6b7ea2d7569e31f5da361fe6f319517f068bbc9f38b5b5ef69700b196caebaf2R9

[tmplt]

RFC amended: it now proposes archiving rust-embedded/itm instead of disowning it, and giving me publisher access to itm on crates.io after which itm v0.4.0 will be released.

[therealprof]

As approved by the team and discussed in the meeting today, this is good to go and will be put in effect immediately.

Thanks @tmplt.

bors r+

[bors]

Build succeeded:

• dummy