-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Mention keyword closing policy #65007
Conversation
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
Yes, i think so. |
r? @oli-obk --- I think we may want compiler team FCP on this? I've personally found it useful to ping certain old issues in my commits so that I remember them. For example, in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/64221/commits I referenced a bunch of issues that I wanted to close. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't have a strong opinion here, but I think if we're going to word this, we might as well explain our reasoning.
My view is that we shouldn't legislate here. It is sometimes useful to reference issues in commit messages purely to remember them whereas I would have to have post-it notes to remember them for when I make the PR. Also, it's worth noting that most of the "spam" comes from @bors's commit messages and those are useful when looking over blame. |
I am fine with both. |
to better describe the situation
@bors r+ rollup seems good now |
📌 Commit 1c85b45 has been approved by |
🌲 The tree is currently closed for pull requests below priority 1000, this pull request will be tested once the tree is reopened |
Mention keyword closing policy closes rust-lang#59233 / rust-lang#59233 (comment) rewording suggestions welcome > Also in the referenced issue, the commit number of the new commit > that could close that issue is not really informative. The PR number itself appeared in the issue > is more informative and concise. @lzutao what do you mean with that? Is this fixed by the new "May be fixed by #XXXXX"?
Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - #64145 (Target-feature documented as unsafe) - #65007 (Mention keyword closing policy) - #65417 (Add more coherence tests) - #65507 (Fix test style in unused parentheses lint test) - #65591 (Add long error explanation for E0588) - #65617 (Fix WASI sleep impl) - #65656 (Add option to disable keyboard shortcuts in docs) - #65678 (Add long error explanation for E0728) - #65681 (Code cleanups following up on #65576.) - #65686 (refactor and move `maybe_append` ) - #65688 (Add some tests for fixed ICEs) - #65689 (bring back some Debug instances for Miri) - #65695 (self-profiling: Remove module names from some event-ids in codegen backend.) - #65706 (Add missing space in librustdoc) Failed merges: r? @ghost
closes #59233 / #59233 (comment)
rewording suggestions welcome
@lzutao what do you mean with that? Is this fixed by the new "May be fixed by #XXXXX"?