-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Stabilize match_default_bindings #49394
Conversation
dd98f84
to
1f6a313
Compare
1f6a313
to
38520cf
Compare
@petrochenkov See my comment above-- these are both errors now, and I believe they could be made to not error in the future in a backwards-compatible way. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #49053) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
38520cf
to
578ab15
Compare
src/libsyntax/feature_gate.rs
Outdated
@@ -563,6 +560,8 @@ declare_features! ( | |||
(accepted, conservative_impl_trait, "1.26.0", Some(34511), None), | |||
// The `i128` type | |||
(accepted, i128_type, "1.26.0", Some(35118), None), | |||
// Default match binding modes (RFC 2005) | |||
(accepted, match_default_bindings, "1.22.0", Some(42640), None), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should definitely not be 1.22.0...
578ab15
to
d36eee1
Compare
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit d36eee1 has been approved by |
@bors p=15 |
Stabilize match_default_bindings This includes a submodule update to rustfmt in order to allow a stable feature declaration. r? @nikomatsakis cc #42640 Many of the tests this PR touches are merely testing the current lack of desired future behavior around #44849 and #44848 (cc @tschottdorf). I noticed the bullets for those items were checked on the tracking issue-- I've unchecked them, as they don't appear to have been completed and I don't see any comments indicating that we don't want to pursue them further. Still, I think it's fine to stabilize the current behavior, as I think expanding it in the future should be backwards-compatible.
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
@bors retry 3 hour timeout |
⌛ Testing commit d36eee1 with merge 7cd6ced665f481746902e12d9d5fd3da2ed314b3... |
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
@cramertj I think you need to actually rebase. |
This includes a submodule update to rustfmt in order to allow a stable feature declaration.
d36eee1
to
3c65f53
Compare
📌 Commit 3c65f53 has been approved by |
⌛ Testing commit 3c65f53 with merge 29b54f86dc2d61faf66686fc40cc7f11759ac7fa... |
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
I will assume that this is spurious, but I suppose we should also cc @BurntSushi. @bors retry
|
The xsv error is supposed to be fixed by BurntSushi/xsv@92de288 and #45550, not sure why this is coming back... |
@Mark-Simulacrum I would say that is definitely spurious. I'll try to take a closer look soonish, but not sure exactly when. |
Stabilize match_default_bindings This includes a submodule update to rustfmt in order to allow a stable feature declaration. r? @nikomatsakis cc #42640 Many of the tests this PR touches are merely testing the current lack of desired future behavior around #44849 and #44848 (cc @tschottdorf). I noticed the bullets for those items were checked on the tracking issue-- I've unchecked them, as they don't appear to have been completed and I don't see any comments indicating that we don't want to pursue them further. Still, I think it's fine to stabilize the current behavior, as I think expanding it in the future should be backwards-compatible.
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
This includes a submodule update to rustfmt
in order to allow a stable feature declaration.
r? @nikomatsakis
cc #42640
Many of the tests this PR touches are merely testing the current lack of desired future behavior around #44849 and #44848 (cc @tschottdorf). I noticed the bullets for those items were checked on the tracking issue-- I've unchecked them, as they don't appear to have been completed and I don't see any comments indicating that we don't want to pursue them further. Still, I think it's fine to stabilize the current behavior, as I think expanding it in the future should be backwards-compatible.