-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
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
docs(changelog): Call out cargo-new lockfile change #13260
Merged
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
I was looking for what release this happened in but we didn't have it listed. We do list the documentation change. This was likely from the PR focusing on the entire policy change which made it easy to overlook each aspect of the policy change.
r? @ehuss (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
label
Jan 8, 2024
Thanks! @bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
and removed
S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
labels
Jan 8, 2024
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
1 similar comment
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
👀 Test was successful, but fast-forwarding failed: 422 Changes must be made through a pull request. |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2024
Update cargo 14 commits in 2ce45605d9db521b5fd6c1211ce8de6055fdb24e..3e428a38a34e820a461d2cc082e726d3bda71bcb 2024-01-04 18:04:13 +0000 to 2024-01-09 20:46:36 +0000 - refactor: replace `iter_join` with `itertools::join` (rust-lang/cargo#13275) - docs(unstable): doc comments for items and fields (rust-lang/cargo#13274) - crates-io: Set `Content-Type: application/json` only for requests with a body payload (rust-lang/cargo#13264) - fix: only inherit workspace package table if the new package is a member (rust-lang/cargo#13261) - feat(cli): add colors to `-Zhelp` console output (rust-lang/cargo#13269) - chore(deps): update msrv (rust-lang/cargo#13266) - refactor(toml): Make it more obvious to update package-dependent fields (rust-lang/cargo#13267) - chore(ci): Fix MSRV:3 updates (rust-lang/cargo#13268) - chore(ci): Shot-in-the-dark fix for MSRV updating (rust-lang/cargo#13265) - fix: set OUT_DIR for all units with build scripts (rust-lang/cargo#13204) - fix(manifest): Provide unused key warnings for lints table (rust-lang/cargo#13262) - test(manifest): Verify we warn on unused workspace.package fields (rust-lang/cargo#13263) - docs(changelog): Call out cargo-new lockfile change (rust-lang/cargo#13260) - chore: Add dependency dashboard (rust-lang/cargo#13255) r? ghost
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
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.
I was looking for what release this happened in but we didn't have it listed.
We do list the documentation change.
This was likely from the PR focusing on the entire policy change which made it easy to overlook each aspect of the policy change.