more toolstate comments #69693
Closed
more toolstate comments #69693
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
RalfJung
commented
Mar 4, 2020
| @@ -325,11 +325,11 @@ fn prepare_toolstate_config(token: &str) { | |||
| Err(_) => false, | |||
| }; | |||
| if !success { | |||
| panic!("git config key={} value={} successful (status: {:?})", key, value, status); | |||
| panic!("git config key={} value={} failed (status: {:?})", key, value, status); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was just a typo, wasn't it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I noticed that, and switched one of them in my PR to "unsuccessful". My only thought is that maybe it was written like how some people use expect() and put the expected result/behavior in the string (like expect("does not fail")) instead of explaining the error (expect("error")). I find that quite confusing myself, but I see how reading "expect error" in English is also confusing, since it does the opposite. I kinda wish a different word than expect was chosen. (Sorry, off-topic ramble.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unsuccessful seems fine, too (it was used above so it is more consistent).
|
Rolled this up into #69705. |
|
Great, thanks! I will close this one then. |
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2020
…ta, r=Mark-Simulacrum Toolstate: remove redundant beta-week check. I made a bit of a mistake in rust-lang#69624. The "beta regression" doesn't need to be checked twice. I also rolled up rust-lang#69693 to avoid merge conflicts.
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.
Adjust some comments for the rewrite of parts of this in Rust.
However, I am still confused by what I raised at #69624 (comment).
r? @Mark-Simulacrum