-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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
add fallback logic to git_upstream_merge_base
#137994
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
rustbot has assigned @Mark-Simulacrum. Use |
8395e9b
to
3ea9ed3
Compare
Signed-off-by: onur-ozkan <work@onurozkan.dev>
3ea9ed3
to
ee18c39
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am personally reluctant to poke this in a hot-fix kind of way. CI does need different treatment, but merge-base being needed only in CI seems highly suspicious to me. I don't think we've landed on the right strategy for commit discovery, and I worry about incrementally adding conditions to it without a cohesive narrative on what we're trying to accomplish and without tests (even manual ones!).
// outdated very quickly. | ||
"HEAD".to_string() | ||
{ | ||
git_upstream_merge_base(config, git_dir).unwrap() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As mentioned in my comment (#101907 (comment), footnote 1) this never executes in practice in (our) CI.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you sure? We are running that on every pipeline (unless it's beta/stable channel) as far as I know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As Mark explained, channel
is "nightly\n"
, so I don't think we are...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ooh, what the hack... lol
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe that is the reason why sometimes CI fails?
I am fine with not merging this right away. I tried to unblock the contribution roadblock with the first solution that came to my mind but I agree that if it's not very critical, it's better not to apply a workaround. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #138127) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
Fixes #101907
cc @RalfJung