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 unnecessary notations #13801

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 9, 2024

Conversation

lapla-cogito
Copy link
Contributor

fix #13799

changelog: none

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 9, 2024

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Jarcho (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Dec 9, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Jarcho Jarcho left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems reasonable. Thank you.

@Jarcho Jarcho added this pull request to the merge queue Dec 9, 2024
Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit 6a3ef93 Dec 9, 2024
9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Unnecessary notations in doc comments
3 participants