Only include "already existing ..." comment in gitignore on conflict #7570
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
This comment was previously confusing when there were no existing items that conflict.
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @alexcrichton (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
twe4ked
commented
Nov 7, 2019
| #\n\ | ||
| #already existing elements are commented out\n\n" | ||
| .to_string(); | ||
| let mut out = "\n\n#Added by cargo\n".to_string(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm tempted to add some spaces before the # just for subjectively nicer formatting.
/foo
/target
# Added by cargo
#
# already existing elements were commented out
# /target
**/*.rs.bk
Thoughts?
twe4ked
commented
Nov 8, 2019
| let mut out = "\n\n#Added by cargo\n".to_string(); | ||
| if ignore_items | ||
| .iter() | ||
| .any(|item| existing_items.contains(item)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is probably a more efficient way of doing this. Suggestions welcome!
|
@bors: r+ Looks good to me, thanks! |
|
📌 Commit c42f2ee has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 11, 2019
…alexcrichton Only include "already existing ..." comment in gitignore on conflict I found the comment a bit confusing when I've used `cargo init` when I haven't had any conflicts. I thought it was meaning that my existing entries would be all commented out so I thought there was a bug of some kind. This PR changes the comment to only be included when there are conflicting entries in the existing file.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 17, 2019
Update Cargo, books ## cargo 12 commits in 5da4b4d47963868d9878480197581ccbbdaece74..8280633db680dec5bfe1de25156d1a1d53e6d190 2019-10-28 21:53:41 +0000 to 2019-11-11 23:17:05 +0000 - Don't panic when parsing `/proc/stat` (rust-lang/cargo#7580) - Fix unused configuration key warning for a few keys under `build`. (rust-lang/cargo#7575) - Add back support for `BROWSER` envvar in `cargo doc --open`. (rust-lang/cargo#7576) - Only include "already existing ..." comment in gitignore on conflict (rust-lang/cargo#7570) - Add VS Code user dir to .gitignore (rust-lang/cargo#7578) - Added aliases to subcommand typo suggestions. (rust-lang/cargo#7486) - Use multiple requirement syntax consistently (rust-lang/cargo#7573) - Update verison to 0.42 (rust-lang/cargo#7568) - Expand documentation on build scripts. (rust-lang/cargo#7565) - Update crossbeam-utils requirement from 0.6 to 0.7 (rust-lang/cargo#7566) - don't download std-docs on CI (rust-lang/cargo#7513) - Change my-buddy to github-handle (rust-lang/cargo#7553) ## nomicon 2 commits in 5004ad30d69f93553ceef74439fea2159d1f769e..58e36e0e08dec5a379ac568827c058e25990d6cd 2019-10-12 19:52:40 +0200 to 2019-10-30 08:14:24 -0500 - remove references to the nursery - Add github action to replace Travis.yml (rust-lang/nomicon#172) ## reference 7 commits in 4b21b64..45558c4 2019-10-27 22:33:11 +0100 to 2019-11-08 14:47:35 +0100 - Audit code blocks. (rust-lang/reference#715) - Update coherence and orphan rules documentation to match RFC 2451 (rust-lang/reference#703) - Update organization name (rust-lang/reference#713) - State that no_implicit_prelude also applies to nested modules (rust-lang/reference#707) - expand Copy docs (rust-lang/reference#711) - github action doesn't use the nursery (rust-lang/reference#706) - Migrate to GitHub Actions. (rust-lang/reference#705) ## book 1 commits in 28fa3d15b0bc67ea5e79eeff2198e4277fc61baf..e79dd62aa63396714278d484d91d48826737f47f 2019-10-29 07:16:09 -0500 to 2019-10-30 07:33:12 -0500 - No need for an iterator here to fetch values (rust-lang/book#1957) ## rust-by-example 1 commits in f3197ddf2abab9abdbc029def8164f4a748b0d91..dcee312c66267eb5a2f6f1561354003950e29105 2019-10-29 10:17:40 -0300 to 2019-10-31 11:26:53 -0300 - refactor: simplify extracting Result from Option (rust-lang/rust-by-example#1283) ## edition-guide 2 commits in e58bc4ca104e890ac56af846877c874c432a64b5..f553fb26c60c4623ea88a1cfe731eafe0643ce34 2019-07-31 20:14:12 +0200 to 2019-10-30 08:27:42 -0500 - remove old references to the nursery - Port from Travis to GitHub Actions (rust-lang/edition-guide#192)
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.
I found the comment a bit confusing when I've used
cargo initwhen I haven't had any conflicts. I thought it was meaning that my existing entries would be all commented out so I thought there was a bug of some kind.This PR changes the comment to only be included when there are conflicting entries in the existing file.