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

Fix rustc_tools_util's version.host_compiler release channel, expose the rustc version, and add tests #14123

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ignatz
Copy link

@ignatz ignatz commented Jan 31, 2025

changelog: Fix rustc_tools_util's version.host_compiler release channel, expose the rustc version, and add tests.

Previously the host_compiler would be set to "nighly" on the stable channel. Generally, the field felt a bit neglected neither being printed not tested.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 31, 2025

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Centri3 (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 Jan 31, 2025
@ignatz
Copy link
Author

ignatz commented Jan 31, 2025

FWIW, I would also happily replace

host_compiler = "stable" | "nightly" | "beta" | undefined;

with the verbose version string, e.g. "rustc 1.84.0 (9fc6b4312 2025-01-07)"

The former is trivial to derive. Merely didn't do it in case someone depends on the current behavior, though unlikely since it was broken. Maybe one could just release a 0.5.0?

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.

3 participants