-
Couldn't load subscription status.
- Fork 13.9k
Bounce out the layout refactor from beta #46925
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
Conversation
80280f1 to
2eaec8b
Compare
|
I thought that @alexcrichton's PR #45905 conflicts with #45225, but it is not based on @eddyb's PR and landed in parallel with it, so it's probably a better idea to leave it in. |
|
r=me |
This should make sure that they stay fixed.
2eaec8b to
d6a5946
Compare
|
This is a big beta change @bors r+ p=10 |
|
📌 Commit d6a5946 has been approved by |
Bounce out the layout refactor from beta @eddyb's #45225 was supposed to get into get into 1.24, but due to an ordering mistake, it had snuck into 1.23. That wide-effect translation-changing PR had poked LLVM's weak corners and caused many regressions (3 of them have fixes I include here, but also #46897, #46845, #46449, #46371). I don't think it is a good idea to land it in the beta (1.23) because there are bound to be some regressions we didn't patch. Therefore, I am reverting it in time for stable, along with its related regression fixes. r? @michaelwoerister (I think)
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
|
Thanks, folks! |
@eddyb's #45225 was supposed to get into get into 1.24, but due to an ordering mistake, it had snuck into 1.23.
That wide-effect translation-changing PR had poked LLVM's weak corners and caused many regressions (3 of them have fixes I include here, but also #46897, #46845, #46449, #46371). I don't think it is a good idea to land it in the beta (1.23) because there are bound to be some regressions we didn't patch.
Therefore, I am reverting it in time for stable, along with its related regression fixes.
r? @michaelwoerister (I think)