Prepare for partial-version package specs #12591
Merged
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
I assume the reason these aren't all individual tests is test-time but if we divide by success/failure, I'll need to duplicate things to handle partial versions. Overall, I feel like this makes the tests make more sense.
epage
changed the title
|
r? @ehuss (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
A-cli
epage
force-pushed
the
spec
branch
4 times, most recently
from
9750f51
to
a2830db
Compare
weihanglo
approved these changes
Aug 31, 2023
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 6, 2023
Update cargo 21 commits in 96fe1c9e1aecd8f57063e3753969bb6418fd2fd5..d14c85f4e6e7671673b1a1bc87231ff7164761e1 2023-08-29 20:10:34 +0000 to 2023-09-05 22:28:10 +0000 - fix(resolver): Make resolver behavior independent of package order (rust-lang/cargo#12602) - cargo-credential: change serialization of cache expiration (rust-lang/cargo#12622) - Update registry-web-api.md yank/unyank comments (rust-lang/cargo#12619) - test: new options of debuginfo are no longer unstable (rust-lang/cargo#12618) - use split_once for cleaner code (rust-lang/cargo#12615) - stop using lazy_static (rust-lang/cargo#12616) - doc: adjust all doc headings one level up (rust-lang/cargo#12595) - chore(deps): update compatible (rust-lang/cargo#12609) - chore(deps): update rust crate cargo_metadata to 0.17.0 (rust-lang/cargo#12610) - Prepare for partial-version package specs (rust-lang/cargo#12591) - refactor: Use more serde_untagged (rust-lang/cargo#12581) - fix(cli): Help users know possible `--target` values (rust-lang/cargo#12607) - Tab completion for --target uses rustup but fallsback to rustc (rust-lang/cargo#12606) - Fewer temporary needless strings (rust-lang/cargo#12604) - fix(help): Provide better commands heading for styling (rust-lang/cargo#12593) - fix(update): Clarify meaning of --aggressive as --recursive (rust-lang/cargo#12544) - docs(changelog): Clarify language for Cargo.lock policy (rust-lang/cargo#12601) - fix typo: "default branch branch" -> "default branch" (rust-lang/cargo#12598) - fix: add error for unsupported credential provider version (rust-lang/cargo#12590) - fix(help): Explain --explain (rust-lang/cargo#12592) - fix(help): Remove redundant information from new/init (rust-lang/cargo#12594) 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.
What does this PR try to resolve?
These are refactorings, test expansions, and cleanups I saw as I was preparing to implement support for
[email protected]as proposed in #12425. I figured these changes stand on their own so I separated them out.One further change I considered was that
foo@0will suggestfooin a "did you mean" message. This is a big off but most likely any fix for this would be undone by the work to support[email protected], so I held off on it.How should we test and review this PR?
Each change is broken down into an individual commit