Do not ping PR reviewers in toolstate breakage #69449
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
I think pinging the PR author is at least reasonable, though I agree that many PR authors in practice won't followup (and leave it to tool people). I think that mostly speaks to a not-great experience to the "I want to fix tools" story today, though. I'd like T-compiler sign-off on this as the primary affected party, though I think FCP is overkill -- let's just see if anyone objects at/before the meeting. cc @rust-lang/compiler |
Mark-Simulacrum
added
I-nominated
T-compiler
|
I think it's ok either way |
|
discussed at T-compiler meeting. All were in favor of this change. Some were in favor of going further (e.g. removing PR author as well) but we opted to leave that discussion for a later point. I.e. lets not block this PR on that question. |
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 8d0e918 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2020
…mulacrum Do not ping PR reviewers in toolstate breakage As per rust-lang#69419 (comment) We should also remove author part?
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2020
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #60826 (Implement new gdb/lldb pretty-printers) - #69255 (Add more context to E0599 errors) - #69379 (Fail on multiple declarations of `main`.) - #69430 (librustc_typeck: remove loop that never actually loops) - #69449 (Do not ping PR reviewers in toolstate breakage) - #69491 (rustc_span: Add `Symbol::to_ident_string` for use in diagnostic messages) - #69495 (don't take redundant references to operands) - #69496 (use find(x) instead of filter(x).next()) Failed merges: r? @ghost
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2020
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #69379 (Fail on multiple declarations of `main`.) - #69430 (librustc_typeck: remove loop that never actually loops) - #69449 (Do not ping PR reviewers in toolstate breakage) - #69491 (rustc_span: Add `Symbol::to_ident_string` for use in diagnostic messages) - #69495 (don't take redundant references to operands) - #69496 (use find(x) instead of filter(x).next()) - #69501 (note that find(f) is equivalent to filter(f).next() in the docs.) - #69527 (Ignore untracked paths when running `rustfmt` on repository.) - #69529 (don't use .into() to convert types into identical types.) Failed merges: 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.
As per #69419 (comment)
We should also remove author part?