-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.4k
Stabilize atomic_try_updateand deprecate fetch_update starting 1.96.0
#148590
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
I would suggest splitting out the lint change into a separate PR. It would be useful even before stabilization, I don't think it requires its own FCP, and it'll make the API stabilization itself a bit easier to review. That's especially important since the simultaneous deprecation makes it a big and tricky diff by stabilization standards! |
02e586c to
67b2e92
Compare
|
Good idea! Done: #148601 |
…ng, r=Kivooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang#135894
…ng, r=Kivooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang#135894
…ng, r=Kivooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang#135894
67b2e92 to
7ffe34e
Compare
…ooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang/rust#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang/rust#135894
…ooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang/rust#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang/rust#135894
…ng, r=Kivooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang#135894
…ooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang/rust#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang/rust#135894
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #149222) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
7ffe34e to
9a0eb78
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
9a0eb78 to
0733988
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@rustbot label -S-waiting-on-FCP RIP |
and deprecate fetch_update starting 1.96.0
0733988 to
65e453c
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
…ooeo `invalid_atomic_ordering`: also lint `update` & `try_update` Split from rust-lang/rust#148590 Tracking issue for `update` and `try_update`: rust-lang/rust#135894
|
r? t-libs |
|
Error: Parsing assign command in comment failed: ...'' | error: specify user to assign to at >| ''... Please file an issue on GitHub at triagebot if there's a problem with this bot, or reach out on #triagebot on Zulip. |
|
@rustbot reroll Or what was that new command named |
| #[cfg_attr(miri, track_caller)] // even without panics, this helps for Miri backtraces | ||
| #[rustc_should_not_be_called_on_const_items] | ||
| #[deprecated( | ||
| since = "1.96.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ping @Amanieu from #135894 (comment)
Point of clarification. Is it intended to deprecate this immediately with stabilization, have this set to a version further down the line, or simply TBD like the u8 module?
(also, does CURRENT_RUSTC_VERSION work here?)
Tracking issue: #135894
FCP completed: #135894 (comment)
1.96.0 was chosen because I don't think the remaining month until 1.93.0 becomes beta is enough for the FCP to finish and this to get merged, so 1.94.0 + a couple of versions of leeway: #135894 (comment)
Closes #135894