Try stamp files rather than group rules for sequencing #4478
+11
−17
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
sisuresh
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2024
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to failed status checks
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I tried to use a clever feature of GNU make (the
&:rule type) and it does not seem to cause the sequencing it implies in the manual. We need some sequencing to avoid running multiple cargos in parallel since they in turn run rustup and rustup can't handle concurrent execution.So let us try this with just "more stamp files", the old fashioned way.