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

Add release notes for 1.0.0-beta #23959

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 2, 2015
Merged

Conversation

aturon
Copy link
Member

@aturon aturon commented Apr 1, 2015

Collected from TWiR and the PR log.

r? @alexcrichton
f? @brson @nikomatsakis @huonw


* Infrastructure

* Metadata was tunes, shrinking binaries [by 27%][metadata-shrink].
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

tuned

@aturon
Copy link
Member Author

aturon commented Apr 1, 2015

f? @nrc @pnkfelix

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Apr 1, 2015

@aturon Assuming #23945 lands, then something needs to mention it, though I would be satisfied with just making it an amendment on #22532

Update: okay, I put a comment on RFC 560, so i'm satisfied on that front now.

[scoped]: http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/master/std/thread/fn.scoped.html
[moar-ufcs]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/22172
[prim-inherent]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/23104
[overflow]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/22532
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should this point instead at the integer overflow RFC? Or did you want to keep focus on what was actually implemented, versus what pieces still may remain unimplemented from the RFC? (Or is the RFC PR itself not a useful document to point to ... in which case I would suggest pointing to the text of the merged RFC itself?)

I'm just not sure the implementation PR is itself the most useful pointer to provide for this document.

@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Apr 2, 2015

@aturon @alexcrichton okay, r=me whenever you want to put this in.

(the text is fine, apart from my nits above, and I confirmed that each url goes to places that are related to the subject at hand.)

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: r+ (I'll tweak in a rollup)

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

📌 Commit 35a6a37 has been approved by alexcrichton

alexcrichton added a commit to alexcrichton/rust that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2015
@aturon
Copy link
Member Author

aturon commented Apr 2, 2015

@pnkfelix Thanks for the tweaks (I put this together in a hurry)!

@alexcrichton Feel free to update with all of @pnkfelix's suggestions.

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 2, 2015
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 35a6a37 with merge 6ab2f52...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 2, 2015

⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

@bors bors merged commit 35a6a37 into rust-lang:master Apr 2, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants