)]}'
{
  "commit": "aca918d191c862771882d945bbde20b4a44b98b8",
  "tree": "23ff7d675d5618bdbbea37cbe5ada859441a603d",
  "parents": [
    "3340922df189bddcbaad17dc3927d51a76bcd5ed"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Travis Cross",
    "email": "tc@traviscross.com",
    "time": "Wed Apr 16 22:42:32 2025 +0000"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "Travis Cross",
    "email": "tc@traviscross.com",
    "time": "Wed Apr 30 16:20:45 2025 +0000"
  },
  "message": "Remove apologies about the Reference\n\nRight now the Reference, in its README and introduction, contains a\nnumber of warnings and caveats that amount to apologies about the\ndocument.  These have outlived their usefulness and should be removed.\nThe Reference is the reference on Rust.  It\u0027s the product of an\nenormous amount of careful work by many people.  It\u0027s a good document,\nand we don\u0027t need to apologize about it.\n\nIn particular, these apologies don\u0027t need to be the very first things\nwe say about the document.  We don\u0027t need to warn people off from it.\nGiven how we frame it at the moment, a reader could reasonably think,\n\"well, if that\u0027s all its own authors think of this document, why\nshould I waste my time with it?\", and anecdotally, this is something\nthat I\u0027ve observed people reflecting back to us.\n\nLet\u0027s stop this negative cueing.\n\nDoes the Reference have bugs or omissions?  Sure.  It always will.  So\ndoes and will our compiler.  We can simply point people to our issue\ntracker in a note; we don\u0027t need for this to be a warning, and we\ndon\u0027t need to elaborate.\n\nDo we need to say the Reference is non-normative?  No.  We treat it\nwith all the care and respect that we would any normative document,\nand we have for many years.  We author it in normative language, and\nwe take care to ensure that the substance of this normative language\naccords with normative lang team decisions.  The lang team directly\nFCPs changes to the Reference when those changes affect the guarantees\nthat are made by the language.\n\nDo we need to say that our descriptions of the language are\n\"informal\"?  No, not in general.  We work to describe things as\nprecisely and correctly as we can.  While such statements might not be\n\"formal\" ones, neither are they \"informal\".\n\nDo we need to say that it\u0027s not a specification?  No.  What is a\nspecification anyway?  We\u0027d have to answer that before saying that\nit\u0027s not one.\n\nThe Reference is the Reference.  That\u0027s all we need to say.  The text\nspeaks for itself.  Let\u0027s remove those things that have outlived their\nusefulness to us.\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "0c7f3c496119b34256fcb800422823d7ffceec81",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "README.md",
      "new_id": "cfcd0b8c5bb546e41891b28ccebd0ab00c9327ba",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "README.md"
    },
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "a59a84f282998af037039dbc4670d1cd5992fe41",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "src/introduction.md",
      "new_id": "3e926ed81c039ed9e58b538be77b1328d946ddc2",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "src/introduction.md"
    }
  ]
}