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

Revert #81, #82, #83 #84

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2019
Merged

Revert #81, #82, #83 #84

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 19, 2019

Conversation

alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

This commit reverts three recent PRs to the getopts crate. One of the
main consumers of getopts is rustc, which isn't allowed to have
breaking changes. In #82, however, a breaking change was landed. It
looks like #83 builds on this change, and while #81 seems unrelated the
diffs were somewhat tangled.

This commit reverts three recent PRs to the `getopts` crate. One of the
main consumers of `getopts` is `rustc`, which isn't allowed to have
breaking changes. In rust-lang#82, however, a breaking change was landed. It
looks like rust-lang#83 builds on this change, and while rust-lang#81 seems unrelated the
diffs were somewhat tangled.
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

cc @jridgewell, I'm sorry we've gotta revert so quickly but I've got changes to publish to getopts for upstream changes in rustc in rust-lang/rust#63637, and I don't have a moment right now to handle the breaking changes.

If you're still interested in having these changes landed in the crate, perhaps a config option could be added to enable this new behavior so it's not a breaking change and crates can opt-in to this CLI behavior?

@alexcrichton alexcrichton merged commit 0f67003 into rust-lang:master Aug 19, 2019
@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the revert branch August 19, 2019 15:05
alexcrichton added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2019
Fixes a git mistake with #84
@KodrAus
Copy link
Contributor

KodrAus commented Aug 22, 2019

Ah whoops! I hadn't realized we depend on getopts in rustc and that it imposes strict requirements on its behavioural API.

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.

2 participants