Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[beta] Revert "Promote missing_fragment_specifier to hard error #75516" #77456

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 3, 2020

Conversation

Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

This reverts "Promote missing_fragment_specifier to hard error #75516" on just beta. I would like us to explore a more principled fix, perhaps along the lines @petrochenkov suggested in #76605, on master when we have more time to test it but I don't want us shipping the breakage in the meantime. I don't personally feel comfortable immediately backporting anything more than a revert here.

cc @matklad

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

Updates src/tools/cargo.

cc @ehuss

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

@Mark-Simulacrum: no appropriate reviewer found, use r? to override

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

⚠️ Warning ⚠️

  • Pull requests are usually filed against the master branch for this repo, but this one is against beta. Please double check that you specified the right target!

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 2, 2020
@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member Author

r? @pietroalbini

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member Author

Updates src/tools/cargo.

That looks like a false positive from the update (well, revert) of cargotest, so can be ignored.

@pietroalbini
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup=never

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 2, 2020

📌 Commit 2b214e6 has been approved by pietroalbini

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 2, 2020
@ehuss
Copy link
Contributor

ehuss commented Oct 2, 2020

Yea, I've been meaning to fix that (rust-lang/highfive#253).

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 3, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 2b214e6 with merge 6d3dc31...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 3, 2020

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions, checks-azure
Approved by: pietroalbini
Pushing 6d3dc31 to beta...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Oct 3, 2020
@bors bors merged commit 6d3dc31 into rust-lang:beta Oct 3, 2020
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.47.0 milestone Oct 3, 2020
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Nov 7, 2020
…chenkov

[beta] Revert "Promote missing_fragment_specifier to hard error rust-lang#75516"

This reverts "Promote missing_fragment_specifier to hard error rust-lang#75516" on just beta. I would like us to explore a more principled fix, perhaps along the lines `@petrochenkov` suggested in rust-lang#76605, on master when we have more time to test it but I don't want us shipping the breakage in the meantime. I don't personally feel comfortable immediately backporting anything more than a revert here.

cc `@matklad`

This matches rust-lang#77456 for 1.47 but targets 1.48 (current beta) instead.

r? `@petrochenkov`
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants