-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
rustdoc: don't give depreciation notes special handling #149931
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
Some changes occurred in HTML/CSS/JS. |
|
Gonna let Guillaume r+, but looks good to me! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Just commented about this here. I'd personally just make the update without gating it behind next edition but seems like something worth discussing with the rest of the team. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #150645) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
1 similar comment
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #150645) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
This was discussed in this month's t-rustdoc meeting, the consensus was the edition gating should be removed and the "future edition" behavior should apply to all editions. |
fdb1d6e to
88d9df0
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
based on discussion in #149741
we're currently using pre-wrap here which forces us to do a bunch of other hacky weird stuff, but getting rid of all that would likely break some existing docs, so i'm proposing we do it across an edition.
r? @GuillaumeGomez