Conversation
|
r? @sfackler (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
Ping from triage: Thanks! |
|
@rfcbot fcp merge |
|
Team member @sfackler has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
|
Ping from triage - this PR is still waiting on review: |
|
I’ve changed the PR description to not close #61695 since that is to become the tracking issue. |
|
Ping from triage - @sfackler this looks like it's still waiting on a merge |
|
It is still waiting on one of @Kimundi, @KodrAus, or @withoutboats to complete the FCP process. |
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
|
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. The RFC will be merged soon. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 6f6848f has been approved by |
Add method Result::into_ok Implementation of rust-lang/rfcs#2799 Tracking issue #61695
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-azure |
6f6848f to
b5e7204
Compare
|
|
|
@bors retry |
|
Probably it is too late for changes, but I think feature should be renamed too (e.g. to |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #67485) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
b5e7204 to
6f0672c
Compare
|
The rebased branch is mergeable and the code currently compiles. Does anything else need to be done to remove S-waiting-on-author? |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 6f0672c has been approved by |
Add method Result::into_ok Implementation of rust-lang/rfcs#2799 Tracking issue rust-lang#61695
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #66045 (Add method Result::into_ok) - #67258 (Introduce `X..`, `..X`, and `..=X` range patterns) - #68014 (Unify output of "variant not found" errors) - #68019 (Build compiletest with in-tree libtest) - #68039 (remove explicit strip-hidden pass from compiler doc generation) - #68050 (Canonicalize rustc_error imports) - #68059 (Allow specifying LLVM args in target specifications) - #68075 (rustbuild: Cleanup book generation) Failed merges: - #68089 (Unstabilize `Vec::remove_item`) r? @ghost
Add Result::into_err where the Ok variant is the never type Equivalent of rust-lang#66045 but for the inverse situation where `T: Into<!>` rather than `E: Into<!>`. I'm using the same feature gate name. I can't see why one of these methods would be OK to stabilize but not the other. Tracking issue: rust-lang#61695
Implementation of rust-lang/rfcs#2799
Tracking issue #61695