Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any chance this could be changed to a permalink with a version?
|
@torhve Looks like it's still failing to complile: https://travis-ci.org/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/jobs/38420515 |
|
Looks like it tests OK now, but the build still fails. |
|
@torhve I think this is our toolset having some growing pains - we will try and get this fixed up soon. |
|
The Rust work all LGTM. My vote is to merge this PR, but create an issue |
|
@hamiltont Are you saying that you tested this with your travis instance and it worked? |
|
I am saying that the detailed output logs for the last travis build on this
|
|
Although I did not look for an error message about the port not being
|
|
I see the exact error message and understand it. Basically, this was pulled before your reworked of our Rant: this is why I hate python sometimes - why can I redeclare variables? Oh, because declaration and assignment are the same. /rant I agree that this looks like Rust isn't probably |
|
@torhve I pulled your latest and there is still an error: |
|
Ugh, the bleeding edge has cut you again: Additionally, you will need to rebase master into your branch to get it to work. |
|
I suggest that you clamp down the version being used. Maybe just use v0.12.0 for the time being? https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/rust-0.12.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.tar.gz |
|
There are still some warnings, and the process does not exit successfully, but we are able to start/run/stop... so I'm considering merging this. My biggest concern is that if I merge this, the nightly build will break it two days from now. |
|
any updates on merging this? |
|
@Ap0ph1s I think the main concern is this line There's not much value in merging something that's only stable for a week, so IIRC the consensus is that this needs to be linked to one version, but it's unclear which version. If you're interested in seeing Rust results ASAP, feel free to pull this branch into your own repo, fix it to a single worthy version, and send in an updated PR |
|
I see this timeline, perhaps this could be fixed to the beta when it's out? |
|
Oh, I also see that the alpha candidate is supposedly feature complete, so it is not too unreasonable to fix this to the alpha if the beta is taking too long as the upgrade should be painless |
|
Rust is improving every day, whether performance or features, or even both, so I think It can wait until beta1, or the actual 1.0, every version that comes out is more worthy than the last. |
|
Rust 1.0 has now been released. I guess it would be worth putting some more work into this. |
|
oh, i missed this PR, and wrote up #1636 . Time to compare! |
|
Closing in favor of #1638 |
No description provided.