Conversation
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Cargo.lock
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since RLS has removed the backtrace dep, this is now coming from
Lines 109 to 113 in dab3a80
I wasn't sure if that entry should be removed from the root Cargo.toml given the presence of the submodule and a few other references (looked like the RA submodule has it, but feature gated) so left in for now and just removed it from the permitted dep lists in the tidy check to get rid of the error.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine to leave it for now, especially if RA still uses it conditionally (I assume we dist it without this feature enabled?).
cc @alexcrichton just in case (06d565c)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If nothing in rust-lang/rust is using the backtrace crate then this should be fine to remove. I thought Cargo at least would be using it through anyhow, but I was mistaken.
I think everything is using the dependency through the standard library now so it should be safe to remove.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume we dist it without this feature enabled?
Actually I guess it's completely disabled (at least at the moment)
[dependencies]
backtrace = { version = "0.3.44", optional = true }
always-assert = { version = "0.1.2", features = ["log"] }
# Think twice before adding anything here
[features]
# Uncomment to enable for the whole crate graph
# default = [ "backtrace" ]I think everything is using the dependency through the standard library now so it should be safe to remove.
SGTM 👍 if something changes in that RA crate or elsewhere which brings backtrace back then the patch can be restored accordingly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like bors will get to this before I get back to my dev machine. If so will open a followup PR to remove the patch
|
It's unclear to me why the other two jobs were cancelled, seemingly mid-run with everything succeeding up to that point 🤷♂️ |
|
📌 Commit d43ffff3e6b3722a3f773164d231b405481aa3e9 has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit d43ffff3e6b3722a3f773164d231b405481aa3e9 with merge 0fcf134521aba2dbfa8344e7e470f348c24634bc... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
|
Looks like we got caught between the stabilization of |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #81132) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
d43ffff to
0a47a38
Compare
|
Rebased and updated to the v705 crate versions 🤞 I opted to keep the removal of the |
|
Looks good, thanks for doing this! @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 0a47a38 has been approved by |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
📣 Toolstate changed by #81768! Tested on commit 218bf8d. 🎉 rls on windows: build-fail → test-pass (cc @Xanewok). |
Tested on commit rust-lang/rust@218bf8d. Direct link to PR: <rust-lang/rust#81768> 🎉 rls on windows: build-fail → test-pass (cc @Xanewok). 🎉 rls on linux: build-fail → test-pass (cc @Xanewok). 🎉 rustfmt on windows: build-fail → test-pass (cc @topecongiro @calebcartwright). 🎉 rustfmt on linux: build-fail → test-pass (cc @topecongiro @calebcartwright).
Fixes #81582 and fixes #81583
r? @Xanewok
I was originally surprised by the size of lockfile diff, though after looking at the RLS changes it makes a bit more sense to me now