Revert "Re-enable rusti tests" #8373
Closed
Conversation
This file contains 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
This reverts commit d5de801.
|
Also, this probably should have a high p= so things stop bouncing in bors |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2013
These are causing problems on the linux bots, I'll investigate soon.
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2021
…n514 Rustdoc: Change all 'optflag' arguments to 'optflagmulti' Because specifying these flags multiple times will never be discernibly different in functionality from specifying them a single time, there is no reason to fail and report an error to the user. This might be a slightly controversial change. it's tough to say, but it's hard to imagine a case where somebody was depending on this behavior, and doing this seem actively better for the user. This originally came up in discussion of a fix for [Cargo rust-lang#8373](rust-lang/cargo#8373), in [Cargo PR rust-lang#8422](rust-lang/cargo#8422). The issue is that Cargo will automatically add things like `--document-private-items` to binaries, because it's the only thing that makes sense there. Then some poor user comes along and adds `--document-private-items` to their `rustdoc` flags for the project and suddenly they're getting errors for specifying a flag twice and need to track down which targets to actually add it to without getting duplicates for reasons they won't understand without deep understanding of Cargo behavior. We're apparently hesitant to inspect `rustdoc` flags provided by the user directly in Cargo, because they're supposed to be opaque, so looking to see if it's already provided before adding it is evidently a non-starter. In trying to resolve that, one suggestion I came up with was to just change `rustdoc` to support passing the flag multiple times, because the user's intent should be clear and it's not *really* an error, so maybe this is a case of 'be permissive in what you accept'. This PR is an attempt to do that in a straightforward manner for purposes of discussion.
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2021
…n514 Rustdoc: Change all 'optflag' arguments to 'optflagmulti' Because specifying these flags multiple times will never be discernibly different in functionality from specifying them a single time, there is no reason to fail and report an error to the user. This might be a slightly controversial change. it's tough to say, but it's hard to imagine a case where somebody was depending on this behavior, and doing this seem actively better for the user. This originally came up in discussion of a fix for [Cargo rust-lang#8373](rust-lang/cargo#8373), in [Cargo PR rust-lang#8422](rust-lang/cargo#8422). The issue is that Cargo will automatically add things like `--document-private-items` to binaries, because it's the only thing that makes sense there. Then some poor user comes along and adds `--document-private-items` to their `rustdoc` flags for the project and suddenly they're getting errors for specifying a flag twice and need to track down which targets to actually add it to without getting duplicates for reasons they won't understand without deep understanding of Cargo behavior. We're apparently hesitant to inspect `rustdoc` flags provided by the user directly in Cargo, because they're supposed to be opaque, so looking to see if it's already provided before adding it is evidently a non-starter. In trying to resolve that, one suggestion I came up with was to just change `rustdoc` to support passing the flag multiple times, because the user's intent should be clear and it's not *really* an error, so maybe this is a case of 'be permissive in what you accept'. This PR is an attempt to do that in a straightforward manner for purposes of discussion.
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2022
[`chars_next_cmp`] Fix unescaped suggestion closes rust-lang#8373 changelog: [`chars_next_cmp`] Fix unescaped suggestion
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.
These are causing problems on the linux bots, I'll investigate soon.