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

Remove rustpkg #11859

Closed
brson opened this issue Jan 28, 2014 · 4 comments · Fixed by #11987
Closed

Remove rustpkg #11859

brson opened this issue Jan 28, 2014 · 4 comments · Fixed by #11987
Labels
E-easy Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.

Comments

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jan 28, 2014

My ml thread here: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2014-January/008224.html

It's a shame so many people spent so much energy both creating it and trying to use it but, but let's get it over with.

Remove rustpkg, its man page, its manual, and the packaging guide.

@salemtalha
Copy link
Contributor

I'll give this a shot

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Jan 28, 2014

@salemtalha ok!

@jhasse
Copy link
Contributor

jhasse commented Jan 29, 2014

Wow. So this is really already decided... I have to say I'm pissed.

@salemtalha
Copy link
Contributor

@brson Question, when I remove the files mentioned in the issue the build process obviously fails, should I make a commit just with those removals and then fix the build process in a separate commit?

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2014
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2023
[`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: work with bodies instead of blocks separately

Fixes rust-lang#11856

Before this change, this lint would check blocks independently of each other, which means that it misses `assert!()`s from parent blocks.
```rs
// check_block
assert!(x.len() > 1);

{
  // check_block
  // no assert here
  let _ = x[0] + x[1];
}
```

This PR changes it to work with bodies rather than individual blocks. That means that a function will be checked in one go and we can remember if an `assert!` occurred anywhere.

Eventually it would be nice to have a more control flow-aware analysis, possibly by rewriting it as a MIR lint, but that's more complicated and I wanted this fixed first.

changelog: [`missing_asserts_for_indexing`]: accept `assert!`s from parent blocks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
E-easy Call for participation: Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants