Change prettyplease_verus "links" field to prettyplease-verus02 to avoid conflicting with the standard prettyplease02 #1438
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
…oid conflicting with the standard prettyplease02
jaylorch
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
utaal
approved these changes
Feb 7, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This came from a discussion with @jaylorch and @jaybosamiya regarding a cargo conflict that arose because our fork of prettyplease was still using the same
linksfield as the standard prettyplease. Conceptually, at least, we propose to have our ownlinks"binary" as part of our own fork (albeit without any actual binary, because there doesn't appear to be an actual binary).By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the MIT license.