* At the same time, all code in rust-analyzer is constantly refactored.
It is explicitly OK for a reviewer to flag only some nits in the PR, and then send a follow-up cleanup PR for things which are easier to explain by example, cc-ing the original author.
Sending small cleanup PRs (like renaming a single local variable) is encouraged.
# Scale of Changes
Everyone knows that it's better to send small & focused pull requests.
The problem is, sometimes you *have* to, eg, rewrite the whole compiler, and that just doesn't fit into a set of isolated PRs.
The main things to keep an eye on are the boundaries between various components.
There are three kinds of changes:
1. Internals of a single component are changed.
Specifically, you don't change any `pub` items.
A good example here would be an addition of a new assist.
2. API of a component is expanded.
Specifically, you add a new `pub` function which wasn't there before.
A good example here would be expansion of assist API, for example, to implement lazy assists or assists groups.
3. A new dependency between components is introduced.
Specifically, you add a `pub use` reexport from another crate or you add a new line to the `[dependencies]` section of `Cargo.toml`.
A good example here would be adding reference search capability to the assists crates.
For the first group, the change is generally merged as long as:
* it works for the happy case,
* it has tests,
* it doesn't panic for the unhappy case.
For the second group, the change would be subjected to quite a bit of scrutiny and iteration.
The new API needs to be right (or at least easy to change later).
The actual implementation doesn't matter that much.
It's very important to minimize the amount of changed lines of code for changes of the second kind.
Often, you start doing a change of the first kind, only to realise that you need to elevate to a change of the second kind.
In this case, we'll probably ask you to split API changes into a separate PR.
Changes of the third group should be pretty rare, so we don't specify any specific process for them.
That said, adding an innocent-looking `pub use` is a very simple way to break encapsulation, keep an eye on it!
Note: if you enjoyed this abstract hand-waving about boundaries, you might appreciate