Skip to content

add support for .rust-toolchain.toml #3195

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

Closed

Conversation

TheAlgorythm
Copy link

This PR adds support for .rust-toolchain.toml files like described in #3182.
I'm not sure if this is the normal procedure or is a RFC needed?

@bjorn3
Copy link
Member

bjorn3 commented Feb 12, 2023

cargo-crev will need to be updated too if this PR ends up getting accepted: https://github.com/crev-dev/cargo-crev/blob/5d9574d43634013ef73684f2af35f37db8ee8bfe/crev-lib/src/util/mod.rs#L118-L122

@ojeda
Copy link

ojeda commented Feb 12, 2023

doc/src/overrides.md here should be updated too.

Copy link

@ojeda ojeda left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also: "The legacy format is not available in rust-toolchain.toml files." (in between the other two doc changes) could be updated to mention both files explicitly.

@rbtcollins
Copy link
Contributor

So at this point both @kinnison and I dislike hiding the file. I'm not sure we can provide a sensible rational that can be argued through though. For now, since this would potentially affect all users and would not be a reversible decision, I think we should not merge a patch adding it.

@rbtcollins rbtcollins closed this Feb 13, 2023
@ojeda
Copy link

ojeda commented Feb 13, 2023

So at this point both @kinnison and I dislike hiding the file. I'm not sure we can provide a sensible rational that can be argued through though.

Well, we provided a rational argument in the original issue, so perhaps you can find something there in particular that you do not like? Otherwise, it is hard to reply.

For now, since this would potentially affect all users and would not be a reversible decision, I think we should not merge a patch adding it.

I agree a fair amount of people would probably start using it (which is one reason it would be nice to have! :), but it is backwards compatible, so I am not sure I understand how it would affect all users -- it should not affect any existing one, no?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants