Skip to content

Conversation

weihanglo
Copy link
Member

What does this PR try to resolve

This fixes the current confusing failures in our CI pipeline:

CI job failed because of this major SemVer breakage:

-pub fn strip_prefix_canonical<P: AsRef<Path>>(
-    path: P,
-    base: P,
+pub fn strip_prefix_canonical(
+    path: impl AsRef<Path>,
+    base: impl AsRef<Path>,
 ) -> Result<PathBuf, std::path::StripPrefixError> {

While cargo-util does have that change violating SemVer,
it is unlikely people use it with turbo-fish syntax.
And cargo-util is essentially for internal use.

See:

How should we test and review this PR?

CI passes and we're all good, though we are violating SemVer policy 😬.

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Feb 22, 2025

r? @ehuss

rustbot has assigned @ehuss.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added A-infrastructure Area: infrastructure around the cargo repo, ci, releases, etc. S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 22, 2025
This fixes the current confusing failures in our CI pipeline:

* https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/actions/runs/13465687015/job/37630870984
* https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/actions/runs/13469881475/job/37642079118

CI job failed because of this major SemVer breakage:

```diff
-pub fn strip_prefix_canonical<P: AsRef<Path>>(
-    path: P,
-    base: P,
+pub fn strip_prefix_canonical(
+    path: impl AsRef<Path>,
+    base: impl AsRef<Path>,
 ) -> Result<PathBuf, std::path::StripPrefixError> {
```

While cargo-util does have that change violating SemVer,
it is unlikely people use it with turbo-fish syntax.
And cargo-util is essentially for internal use.

See:

* https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/246057-t-cargo/topic/check-version-bump.20failure
* https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/crate-ownership.html#internal-use
Copy link
Contributor

@ehuss ehuss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! I would also be fine with just updating the version on beta. But either is fine.

@ehuss ehuss added this pull request to the merge queue Feb 23, 2025
Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit 2decae7 Feb 23, 2025
21 checks passed
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2025
Update cargo

11 commits in 1d1d646c06a84c1aa53967b394b7f1218f85db82..2622e844bc1e2e6123e54e94e4706f7b6195ce3d
2025-02-21 21:38:53 +0000 to 2025-02-28 12:33:57 +0000
- Bump `cc` to 1.2.16 to fix `x86` windows jobs in rust-lang/rust CI (rust-lang/cargo#15245)
- refactor(tree): Abstract the concept of a NodeId (rust-lang/cargo#15237)
- feat: implement RFC 3553 to add SBOM support (rust-lang/cargo#13709)
- refactor(tree): Abstract the concept of an edge (rust-lang/cargo#15233)
- chore: bump openssl to v3 (rust-lang/cargo#15232)
- fix(package): Register workspace member renames in overlay  (rust-lang/cargo#15228)
- Implemented `build.build-dir` config option (rust-lang/cargo#15104)
- feat: add completions for `--manifest-path` (rust-lang/cargo#15225)
- chore: semver-check build-rs against beta channel (rust-lang/cargo#15223)
- chore: depend on openssl-sys to correctly pin its version (rust-lang/cargo#15224)
- chore: dont check cargo-util semver until 1.86 is released (rust-lang/cargo#15222)
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.87.0 milestone Feb 28, 2025
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 4, 2025
### What does this PR try to resolve?

Basically a revert of <#15222>.
@weihanglo weihanglo deleted the cargo-util branch October 6, 2025 15:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-infrastructure Area: infrastructure around the cargo repo, ci, releases, etc. S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants