Conversation
| }; | ||
| 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. |
…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.
…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.
…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.
…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.
…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.
3 participants
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