Conversation
Collaborator
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Member
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Contributor
|
Wait a sec, i'll submit fix that this time #133447 (comment) This: #135255 |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2025
…iaskrgr Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#134228 (Exhaustively handle expressions in patterns) - rust-lang#135194 (triagebot: mark tidy changes with a more specific `A-tidy` label) - rust-lang#135222 (Ensure that we don't try to access fields on a non-struct pattern type) - rust-lang#135250 (A couple simple borrowck cleanups) - rust-lang#135252 (Fix release notes link) - rust-lang#135253 (Revert rust-lang#131365) Failed merges: - rust-lang#135195 (Make `lit_to_mir_constant` and `lit_to_const` infallible) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2025
…iaskrgr Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#134228 (Exhaustively handle expressions in patterns) - rust-lang#135194 (triagebot: mark tidy changes with a more specific `A-tidy` label) - rust-lang#135222 (Ensure that we don't try to access fields on a non-struct pattern type) - rust-lang#135250 (A couple simple borrowck cleanups) - rust-lang#135252 (Fix release notes link) - rust-lang#135253 (Revert rust-lang#131365) Failed merges: - rust-lang#135195 (Make `lit_to_mir_constant` and `lit_to_const` infallible) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 9, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#135253 - pietroalbini:pa-revert-131365, r=Mark-Simulacrum Revert rust-lang#131365 This PR reverts rust-lang#131365, following the revert we did on the beta branches for both 1.84 and 1.85. While the PR passes CI successfully on master, as soon as we branch off beta it starts failing in the newly created beta branch. This caused the release team to revert it for both 1.84 and 1.85, and if nothing is done it would continue being reverted every cycle. `@heiseish` (PR author) feel free to submit the PR again in the future: this revert doesn't represent the release team rejecting your change, but just a (hopefully temporary!) revert to ensure future beta branches can be created without reverting it each time. When submitting the PR again, I recommend you test your changes by configuring `rust.channel` to both `nightly` and `beta` in your `config.toml`. You can see the latest failure [here](rust-lang#135163 (comment)).
Contributor
|
Thanks @pietroalbini and @klensy. Apologies didn't manage to follow through during the past few months, but getting back into it now. Regarding the build failure, may I check if that has been resolved somehow or should I submit a patch for it? |
Member
Author
Contributor
|
@klensy 's fix looks like it's gonna fix the issue. Let me know if you need any help for that. Thanks for the patch! |
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2025
…imulacrum Fix missing rustfmt in msi installer - cont ## Context - This PR extended and fixed rust-lang#131365, which was reverted in rust-lang#135253 - Initial effort from `@klensy` in rust-lang#135255 (at any points if you feel like picking this up again, let me know I'll close my PR! Just trying to push this through since it's my mistake in the original commits) - Tested with both `beta` and `nightly` `rust.channel` r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 24, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#138606 - heiseish:131365-extended, r=Mark-Simulacrum Fix missing rustfmt in msi installer - cont ## Context - This PR extended and fixed rust-lang#131365, which was reverted in rust-lang#135253 - Initial effort from `@klensy` in rust-lang#135255 (at any points if you feel like picking this up again, let me know I'll close my PR! Just trying to push this through since it's my mistake in the original commits) - Tested with both `beta` and `nightly` `rust.channel` r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
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
7 participants
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.
This PR reverts #131365, following the revert we did on the beta branches for both 1.84 and 1.85.
While the PR passes CI successfully on master, as soon as we branch off beta it starts failing in the newly created beta branch. This caused the release team to revert it for both 1.84 and 1.85, and if nothing is done it would continue being reverted every cycle.
@heiseish (PR author) feel free to submit the PR again in the future: this revert doesn't represent the release team rejecting your change, but just a (hopefully temporary!) revert to ensure future beta branches can be created without reverting it each time.
When submitting the PR again, I recommend you test your changes by configuring
rust.channelto bothnightlyandbetain yourconfig.toml. You can see the latest failure here.