kennytm

Suppose this RFC is accepted, will the following still result in [E0527](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/error_codes/E0527.html)/[E0528](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/error_codes/E0528.html)? Or those will be demoted to "unreachable pattern" warnings? ```rust fn main() { match [1] { [] =>...

(Marking `affects-8.1`, we've got a customer encountering Congestion on v8.1.2 cluster. Customer worked around by evicting all regions from 4 Congested TiKVs. Internal ref: NAID-11258)

the actual wildcard syntax is `mercari_[!a]`. you need to prefix with `~` to use the regexp syntax. but the doc still seems to only recommend the wildcards `*` and `?`...

It won't work because assertions `(?!x)` is not "regular" and thus not part of RE2 syntax. There is no plan to support regex flavors other than Golang's built-in one. Route-rules...

also missing an ACP-accepted label 😉

> I don't like most of the taking it further discussions. Consider: > > ``` > // Doesn't matter what this does, just that `+` isn't normal addition. > const...

Note that this was a known issue in PD, see tikv/pd#6577, tikv/pd#7737 on how they fixed it. Perhaps dm-master should just reuse PD's `etcdutil.CreateEtcdClient` instead of reinventing its own.

I think that is implied by "*in addition to the usual normalization that the [`components` iterator](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/path/struct.Path.html#method.components) does*", since if you `path.components().collect::()` they are joined using `MAIN_SEPARATOR_STR`.

I've checked all linked implementation from other languages and they all behave the same regarding left-over `..`: | Implementation | `a/../../b` | `/a/../../b` | `../a/../../b` | |---|---|---|---| | Go `path.Clean`...

@clarfonthey We do use verbs as trait name when the only purpose of the trait is to support that verb, think of `Send` or `Copy` or `Borrow` or `std::iter::Extend`.