Adjust target search algorithm for rustlib path #85152
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
With this the concerns expressed in rust-lang#83800 should be addressed.
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit b7c5599 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 10, 2021
…laumeGomez Rollup of 4 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#84465 (rustdoc: Implement `is_primitive` in terms of `primitive_type()`) - rust-lang#85118 (Use an SVG image for clipboard instead of unicode character) - rust-lang#85148 (Fix source code line number display and make it clickable again) - rust-lang#85152 (Adjust target search algorithm for rustlib path) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
With this the concerns expressed in #83800 should be addressed.
r? @Mark-Simulacrum