Skip to content
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

feat: prepare for the next lockfile bump #12279

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 17, 2023

Conversation

weihanglo
Copy link
Member

What does this PR try to resolve?

The -Znext-lockfile-bump is added, so we can prepare for all
lockfile format changes and then stabilize then all at once.

-Znext-lockfile-bump is not intended for using outside our test
suite and development. Hence it's hidden.

Additional information

See #12120

The `-Znext-lockfile-bump` is added, so we can prepare for all
lockfile format changes and then stabilize then all at once.

`-Znext-lockfile-bump` is not intended for using outside our test
suite and development. Hence it's hidden.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 17, 2023

r? @epage

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added A-dependency-resolution Area: dependency resolution and the resolver A-lockfile Area: Cargo.lock issues A-unstable Area: nightly unstable support S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 17, 2023
@epage
Copy link
Contributor

epage commented Jun 17, 2023

Seems like a reasonable approach so we can slowly accumulate improvements that aren't big enough to justify a bump on their own or require doing them all at once.

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 17, 2023

📌 Commit 0355605 has been approved by epage

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jun 17, 2023
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 17, 2023

⌛ Testing commit 0355605 with merge 424362a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jun 17, 2023

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: epage
Pushing 424362a to master...

@bors bors merged commit 424362a into rust-lang:master Jun 17, 2023
@weihanglo weihanglo deleted the next-lockfile-bump branch June 17, 2023 14:57
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 20, 2023
Update cargo

12 commits in 0c14026aa84ee2ec4c67460c0a18abc8519ca6b2..dead4b8740c4b6a8ed5211e37c99cf81d01c3b1c
2023-06-14 18:43:05 +0000 to 2023-06-20 20:07:17 +0000
- Convert valid feature name warning to an error. (rust-lang/cargo#12291)
- fix(embedded): Don't pollute script dir with lockfile (rust-lang/cargo#12284)
- fix: remove `-Zjobserver-per-rustc` again (rust-lang/cargo#12285)
- docs: some tweaks around `cargo test` (rust-lang/cargo#12288)
- Enable `doctest-in-workspace` by default (rust-lang/cargo#12221)
- fix(embedded): Don't auto-discover build.rs files (rust-lang/cargo#12283)
- fix(embeded): Don't pollute the scripts dir with `target/` (rust-lang/cargo#12282)
- feat: prepare for the next lockfile bump (rust-lang/cargo#12279)
- fix(embedded): Don't create an intermediate manifest (rust-lang/cargo#12268)
- refactor(embedded): Switch to `syn` for parsing doc comments (rust-lang/cargo#12258)
- fix(embedded): Align package name sanitization with cargo-new (rust-lang/cargo#12255)
- Clarify the default behavior of cargo-install. (rust-lang/cargo#12276)

r? `@ghost`
@ehuss ehuss added this to the 1.72.0 milestone Jun 22, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-dependency-resolution Area: dependency resolution and the resolver A-lockfile Area: Cargo.lock issues A-unstable Area: nightly unstable support S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants