Always use the Rust version in package names #77336
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
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors try |
|
⌛ Trying commit 8f17b89fdc7206a1b421bd889dbc3370abaeea81 with merge ff0415b8887ea91a3be6029a39525c0faa4f8530... |
|
Nice but wouldn't rust release indicate that all of the other packages released? So now the other packages need to get into the same train as rust? If so, does the other packages have the same version as rust? If not, how does not know how to track with version is it, by using a tag in all the other packages? |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
jyn514
added
the
T-infra
pietroalbini
force-pushed
the
pkgname
branch
from
8f17b89 to
5eadcc1
Compare
|
@bors try |
|
⌛ Trying commit 5eadcc1 with merge d5be822d7cb09690610b1a66962b413dc375eb5b... |
|
@pickfire this is just changing the name of the tarballs shipped along with the trains. The proper version number will still be available inside the tarball, and nothing will change for the projects. |
pietroalbini
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@bors try |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2020
Always use the Rust version in package names
The format of the tarballs produced by CI is roughly the following:
{component}-{release}-{target}.{ext}
While on the beta and nightly channels `{release}` is just the channel name, on the stable channel is either the Rust version or the version of the component we're shipping:
cargo-0.47.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
clippy-0.0.212-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
llvm-tools-1.46.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
miri-0.1.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
rls-1.41.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
rust-1.46.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
...
This makes it really hard to get the package URL without having access to the manifest (and there is no manifest on ci-artifacts.rlo), as there is no consistent version number to use.
This PR addresses the problem by always using the Rust version number as `{release}` for the stable channel, regardless of the version number of the component we're shipping. I chose that instead of "stable" to avoid breaking the URL scheme *that* much.
Rustup should not be affected by this change, as it fetches the URLs from the manifest. Unfortunately we don't have a way to test other clients before making a stable release, as this change only affects the stable channel.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
|
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions, checks-azure |
pietroalbini
added
S-waiting-on-review
The format of the tarballs produced by CI is roughly the following:
{component}-{release}-{target}.{ext}
While on the beta and nightly channels `{release}` is just the channel
name, on the stable channel is either the Rust version or the version of
the component we're shipping:
cargo-0.47.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
clippy-0.0.212-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
llvm-tools-1.46.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
miri-0.1.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
rls-1.41.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
rust-1.46.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
...
This makes it really hard to get the package URL without having access
to the manifest (and there is no manifest on ci-artifacts.rlo), as there
is no consistent version number to use.
This commit addresses the problem by always using the Rust version
number as `{release}` for the stable channel, regardless of the version
number of the component we're shipping. I chose that instead of "stable"
to avoid breaking the URL scheme *that* much.
Rustup should not be affected by this change, as it fetches the URLs
from the manifest. Unfortunately we don't have a way to test other
clients before making a stable release, as this change only affects the
stable channel.
|
@Mark-Simulacrum my worry is that it would prevent to have multiple stable releases a day, as one stable release in |
|
Makes sense. @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 8d2b159 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
@rustbot modify labels: beta-nominated T-infra Nominating for backport in the beta channel, as this is needed for the improved release process. |
rustbot
added
the
beta-nominated
Merged
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions, checks-azure |
|
If the backport for this is accepted, #77854 also needs to be backported. |
pietroalbini
added
the
beta-accepted
pietroalbini
removed
the
beta-nominated
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 20, 2020
[beta] Rollup backports Cherry-picked: * Always use the Rust version in package names rust-lang#77336 * rustc_parse: More precise spans for `tuple.0.0` rust-lang#77774 * Update crossbeam-channel to avoid UB rust-lang#77819 * build-manifest: stop generating numbered channel names except for stable rust-lang#77854 * Dist build manifest rust-lang#77762 * bootstrap: set correct path for the build-manifest binary rust-lang#77909 r? `@ghost`
This was referenced Nov 17, 2020
Merged
Mark-Simulacrum
pushed a commit
to pietroalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2020
Historically the stable tarballs were named after the version number of
the specific tool, instead of the version number of Rust. For example,
both of the following tarballs were part of the same release:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-0.49.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
PR rust-lang#77336 changed the dist code to instead use Rust's version number for
all the tarballs, regardless of the tool they contain:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
Because of that there is no need anymore to have a separate `cargo`
field in src/stage0.txt, as the Cargo version will always be the same as
the rustc version. This PR removes the field, simplifying the code and
the maintenance work required while producing releases.
m-ou-se
added a commit
to m-ou-se/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2020
…k-Simulacrum
bootstrap: use the same version number for rustc and cargo
Historically the stable tarballs were named after the version number ofthe specific tool, instead of the version number of Rust. For example, both of the following tarballs were part of the same release:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-0.49.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
PR rust-lang#77336 changed the dist code to instead use Rust's version number for all the tarballs, regardless of the tool they contain:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
Because of that there is no need anymore to have a separate `cargo` field in `src/stage0.txt`, as the Cargo version will always be the same as the rustc version. This PR removes the field, simplifying the code and the maintenance work required while producing releases.
r? `@Mark-Simulacrum`
m-ou-se
added a commit
to m-ou-se/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 18, 2020
…k-Simulacrum
bootstrap: use the same version number for rustc and cargo
Historically the stable tarballs were named after the version number ofthe specific tool, instead of the version number of Rust. For example, both of the following tarballs were part of the same release:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-0.49.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
PR rust-lang#77336 changed the dist code to instead use Rust's version number for all the tarballs, regardless of the tool they contain:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
Because of that there is no need anymore to have a separate `cargo` field in `src/stage0.txt`, as the Cargo version will always be the same as the rustc version. This PR removes the field, simplifying the code and the maintenance work required while producing releases.
r? ``@Mark-Simulacrum``
Mark-Simulacrum
pushed a commit
to Mark-Simulacrum/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2020
Historically the stable tarballs were named after the version number of
the specific tool, instead of the version number of Rust. For example,
both of the following tarballs were part of the same release:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-0.49.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
PR rust-lang#77336 changed the dist code to instead use Rust's version number for
all the tarballs, regardless of the tool they contain:
rustc-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
cargo-1.48.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.xz
Because of that there is no need anymore to have a separate `cargo`
field in src/stage0.txt, as the Cargo version will always be the same as
the rustc version. This PR removes the field, simplifying the code and
the maintenance work required while producing releases.
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.
The format of the tarballs produced by CI is roughly the following:
While on the beta and nightly channels
{release}is just the channel name, on the stable channel is either the Rust version or the version of the component we're shipping:This makes it really hard to get the package URL without having access to the manifest (and there is no manifest on ci-artifacts.rlo), as there is no consistent version number to use.
This PR addresses the problem by always using the Rust version number as
{release}for the stable channel, regardless of the version number of the component we're shipping. I chose that instead of "stable" to avoid breaking the URL scheme that much.Rustup should not be affected by this change, as it fetches the URLs from the manifest. Unfortunately we don't have a way to test other clients before making a stable release, as this change only affects the stable channel.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum