Update tracking issue number of future-incompatibility lint unstable_syntax_pre_expansion#155017
Merged
rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit intorust-lang:mainfrom Apr 9, 2026
Conversation
…_syntax_pre_expansion`
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
rustbot has assigned @dingxiangfei2009. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
Kivooeo
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2026
Member
Author
|
@bors r=Kivooeo rollup |
Contributor
rust-bors
bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
rust-bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 9, 2026
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #150316 (Do not use non-wf input expectations from fudge when checking function calls) - #152859 (`-Znext-solver` use the trait object's own bounds instead of goal when considering builtin object bounds) - #154856 (Fix linking two dylibs together when both depend on profiler_builtins) - #153888 (Avoid stack overflow in FindExprBySpan) - #154991 (Fix ICE in next-solver TransmuteFrom candidate) - #154995 (min/max_by tests: also check result) - #155004 (core/num: Fix feature name for unstable `integer_extend_truncate` functions) - #155007 (renaming method is_impl_trait to is_opaque) - #155009 (meta: Add checkboxes to unsresolved questions in issue templates) - #155017 (Update tracking issue number of future-incompatibility lint `unstable_syntax_pre_expansion`)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 9, 2026
Rollup merge of #155017 - fmease:update-issue-number-unstable_syntax_pre_expansion, r=Kivooeo Update tracking issue number of future-incompatibility lint `unstable_syntax_pre_expansion` Issue #65860 has never been a proper tracking issue, it has always been a normal issue that reported a pass→fail regression which was subsequently fixed and which elicited a discussion spanning 50 comments. Years later the formerly offending errors were reintroduced as warnings which link to said issue (see section *Pre-History* in issue #154045 for details). A few weeks ago I closed this issue (#65860 (comment)) in favor of a new super focused & structured tracking issue, #154045. That means people now have to jump through hoops to arrive at the new tracking issue which is less than ideal (it's very likely that this user had to do so: #154045 (comment)), let's fix that. Part of #154045.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue #65860 has never been a proper tracking issue, it has always been a normal issue that reported a pass→fail regression which was subsequently fixed and which elicited a discussion spanning 50 comments. Years later the formerly offending errors were reintroduced as warnings which link to said issue (see section Pre-History in issue #154045 for details).
A few weeks ago I closed this issue (#65860 (comment)) in favor of a new super focused & structured tracking issue, #154045. That means people now have to jump through hoops to arrive at the new tracking issue which is less than ideal (it's very likely that this user had to do so: #154045 (comment)), let's fix that.
Part of #154045.