-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Adding RBE as a submodule #46194 #46196
Conversation
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
This is a needed step, but the build also needs to be updated to actually build RBE in the correct place. Look in here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/bootstrap/doc.rs |
cd243ce
to
8b3f375
Compare
Triage: this is blocked on rust-lang/rust-by-example#962 to get tidy to pass. |
I think I'll leave this one to the docs team |
I merged the upstream issue. |
@projektir You may update the submodule to point at the latest RBE master now. |
It should already be pointed if I understand submodules right, this just needs to be refreshed? |
It doesn't look like it. Maybe you forgot to push the new commit? |
8b3f375
to
6f0ec5f
Compare
At least one RBE sample is failing. Our $PATH doesn't contain
|
That's marked as runnable because the playground does... I would be okay with ignoring it in RBE, I think, as it's not like it's that important anyway. |
@projektir If I am following along correctly, I think you will need to update the submodule reference in this PR again. |
04ebd7a
to
e161009
Compare
554e31c
to
152f52e
Compare
152f52e
to
a2df413
Compare
@steveklabnik We fixed up the various linking issues and looks like this is passing again! 😄 |
@bors: r+ Thank you @projektir ; what should have been a simple PR has really been a wild ride. |
📌 Commit a2df413 has been approved by |
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
The build log is so long I can't see what the failure was. Since it's only on one arch, I'm assuming it was spurious. @bors: retry |
Was it this: "Build execution time has reached the maximum allowed time for your plan (180 minutes)."? Seems like the failed arch was Windows GNU. Hopefully spurious... |
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
…teveklabnik Report errors instead of panic!() when linkcheck encounters absolute paths The RBE contained some absolute links that failed the link check in rust-lang#46196. Diagnosing these issues was needlessly complicated, thanks to the linkchecker just panicing instead of reporting proper errors. This PR replaces the panic with a proper `*errors = true` + error message handling. The linkchecker itself doesn't have any tests so I intentionally didn't touch anything else than the code that previously did the `panic!()`. A small code quality improvement might be made by binding the `Path::new(base).join(url)` into a variable before the for-loop and using this resolved url in both the for loop and the error message. r? @steveklabnik (If not for any other reason than having r on the rust-lang#46196.)
…eveklabnik add Rust By Example to the bookshelf cc rust-lang#46194 With rust-lang#46196 freshly merged, we should add a link to the main docs distribution so people can find it! We discussed this at the docs team meeting today and decided to go ahead with adding it to the bookshelf.
…eveklabnik add Rust By Example to the bookshelf cc rust-lang#46194 With rust-lang#46196 freshly merged, we should add a link to the main docs distribution so people can find it! We discussed this at the docs team meeting today and decided to go ahead with adding it to the bookshelf.
Adding RBE as a submodule to start issue #46194.