Stabilize style_edition = "2024" in-tree
#134929
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
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt cc @rust-lang/rustfmt |
traviscross
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2024
4 tasks
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
style-edition-2024
branch
from
a724a76 to
d649391
Compare
ytmimi
approved these changes
Dec 30, 2024
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
style-edition-2024
branch
from
d649391 to
f694db1
Compare
|
Ok, I'll go ahead and approve this for @ytmimi. If @calebcartwright disagrees with this approach, then sorry for jumping the gun and I'm happy to help out with other solutions. We still have plenty of time (~6 weeks, i.e. all throughout beta) to revert this and go with some other stabilization approach. We should just be mindful that that'll need to do this work on the beta branch :) @bors r=ytmimi |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (80f5a81): comparison URL. Overall result: ❌ regressions - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis is the most reliable metric that we have; it was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment. However, even this metric can sometimes exhibit noise.
Max RSS (memory usage)Results (secondary 6.1%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResults (secondary -2.9%)This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 761.022s -> 760.209s (-0.11%) |
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2025
…r=ytmimi,compiler-errors rustfmt: drop nightly-gating of the `--style-edition` flag registration Follow-up to [Stabilize `style_edition = "2024"` in-tree rust-lang#134929](rust-lang#134929). rust-lang#134929 un-nightly-gated the *read* of `--style-edition`, but didn't also un-nightly-gate the *registration*/*declaration* of the `--style-edition` flag itself. Reading `--style-edition` on a non-nightly channel (e.g. beta) will thus panic because `--style-edition` is never declared. This PR also un-nightly-gates the registration. Not sure how to write a regression test for this, because this *requires* the non-nightly / beta channel. Though existing tests do fail (albeit indirectly). Checking if this fixes the panic against beta in rust-lang#135197. r? rustfmt
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 7, 2025
…r=ytmimi,compiler-errors rustfmt: drop nightly-gating of the `--style-edition` flag registration Follow-up to [Stabilize `style_edition = "2024"` in-tree rust-lang#134929](rust-lang#134929). rust-lang#134929 un-nightly-gated the *read* of `--style-edition`, but didn't also un-nightly-gate the *registration*/*declaration* of the `--style-edition` flag itself. Reading `--style-edition` on a non-nightly channel (e.g. beta) will thus panic because `--style-edition` is never declared. This PR also un-nightly-gates the registration. Not sure how to write a regression test for this, because this *requires* the non-nightly / beta channel. Though existing tests do fail (albeit indirectly). Checking if this fixes the panic against beta in rust-lang#135197. r? rustfmt
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 8, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#135200 - jieyouxu:stabilize-style-edition, r=ytmimi,compiler-errors rustfmt: drop nightly-gating of the `--style-edition` flag registration Follow-up to [Stabilize `style_edition = "2024"` in-tree rust-lang#134929](rust-lang#134929). rust-lang#134929 un-nightly-gated the *read* of `--style-edition`, but didn't also un-nightly-gate the *registration*/*declaration* of the `--style-edition` flag itself. Reading `--style-edition` on a non-nightly channel (e.g. beta) will thus panic because `--style-edition` is never declared. This PR also un-nightly-gates the registration. Not sure how to write a regression test for this, because this *requires* the non-nightly / beta channel. Though existing tests do fail (albeit indirectly). Checking if this fixes the panic against beta in rust-lang#135197. r? rustfmt
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.
This PR stabilizes the
style_editionflag in rustfmt.Why am I doing this in-tree? The beta release cut is imminent (according to forge, on January 3) and this is the most lightweight approach to getting this flag stable on nightly. It's imperative (as far as I can tell -- @traviscross can verify or disagree) that we stabilize the
style_editionflag so that users can control their style edition separately from the edition.I'm happy to move this PR to the rustfmt repo and subsequently prepare a subtree sync if someone on @rust-lang/rustfmt believes that we should get this landed on the rustfmt side then synced. If this is the right recourse, I'd like to note that this is still quite time-sensitive. However, I'm happy to dedicate time to get this done if necessary, since I'd really like to un-jeopardize the style edition.
Tracking: