Closed
Conversation
efdf03a to
63dee0b
Compare
carlocab
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2025
63dee0b to
9b95097
Compare
9b95097 to
f767ff0
Compare
Contributor
|
This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>, where<formula>is the name of the formula you're submitting?brew test <formula>, where<formula>is the name of the formula you're submitting?brew audit --strict <formula>(after doingHOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1 brew install --build-from-source <formula>)? If this is a new formula, does it passbrew audit --new <formula>?or-toolsseems to depend on specificprotobufversions. This should ease the bumps of newprotobufversion such as #228410