Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. #69705
Merged
Conversation
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
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This was referenced Mar 4, 2020
RalfJung
reviewed
Mar 4, 2020
RalfJung
reviewed
Mar 4, 2020
|
Looks good. :) But let's see what @Mark-Simulacrum says. |
|
Seems good to me as well. Thanks! @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit a41f1f1 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2020
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #69520 (Make error message clearer about creating new module) - #69589 (ast: `Mac`/`Macro` -> `MacCall`) - #69614 (`delay_span_bug` when codegen cannot select obligation) - #69641 (Update books) - #69674 (Rename DefKind::Method and TraitItemKind::Method ) - #69697 (Add explanation for E0380) - #69698 (Use associated constants of integer types) - #69705 (Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check.) - #69711 (Update macros.rs: fix documentation typo.) - #69713 (more clippy cleanups) Failed merges: r? @ghost
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
|
@bors rollup |
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2020
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #68899 (Add Display and Error impls for proc_macro::LexError) - #69011 (Document unsafe blocks in core::fmt) - #69674 (Rename DefKind::Method and TraitItemKind::Method ) - #69705 (Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check.) - #69722 (Tweak output for invalid negative impl AST errors) - #69747 (Rename rustc guide) - #69792 (Implement Error for TryReserveError) - #69830 (miri: ICE on invalid terminators) - #69921 (rustdoc: remove unused import) - #69945 (update outdated comment) Failed merges: r? @ghost
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.
I made a bit of a mistake in #69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice.
I also rolled up #69693 to avoid merge conflicts.