Skip to content
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

Rename ~/.multirust to ~/.rustup #830

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 2, 2016
Merged

Rename ~/.multirust to ~/.rustup #830

merged 2 commits into from
Dec 2, 2016

Conversation

brson
Copy link
Contributor

@brson brson commented Nov 22, 2016

This renames the ~/.multirust directory to ~/.rustup. The logic for the upgrade is in do_rustup_home_upgrade, and is defensive against errors. It amounts to moving an unrecognized ~/.rustup folder to ~/.rustup.sh, then moving a ~/.multirust dir to ~/.rustup.

If the upgrade fails then rustup will silently continue using ~/.multirust, though this code path doesn't have tests, and is unlikely to happen...

After the upgrade, or during initial install this also sets up ~/.multirust as a symlink to ~/.rustup in case there are tools depending on it. This is intended to be temporary, to avoid breakage while getting it done quickly.

This needs some more manual testing before deployment but is ready for review.

r? @alexcrichton

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Nov 22, 2016

rustup.sh is already modified to use ~/.rustup.sh.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Nov 23, 2016

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #812) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

r+ from me

Thanks for writing it as you did, this is some crazy logic to follow, but all makes sense to me! (and was easy to read)

This will silently do the upgrade when rustup is run, and
uses several defenses to avoid breaking due to interactions with rustup.sh.
@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Nov 29, 2016

Rebased.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Dec 1, 2016

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 1, 2016

📌 Commit a07ee8c has been approved by brson

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 1, 2016

⌛ Testing commit a07ee8c with merge 0599787...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 1, 2016
Rename ~/.multirust to ~/.rustup

This renames the ~/.multirust directory to ~/.rustup. The logic for the upgrade is in `do_rustup_home_upgrade`, and is defensive against errors. It amounts to moving an unrecognized `~/.rustup` folder to `~/.rustup.sh`, then moving a `~/.multirust` dir to `~/.rustup`.

If the upgrade fails then rustup will silently continue using `~/.multirust`, though this code path doesn't have tests, and is unlikely to happen...

After the upgrade, or during initial install this also sets up `~/.multirust` as a symlink to `~/.rustup` in case there are tools depending on it. This is intended to be temporary, to avoid breakage while getting it done quickly.

This needs some more manual testing before deployment but is ready for review.

r? @alexcrichton
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 2, 2016

💥 Test timed out

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: retry

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 2, 2016

⌛ Testing commit a07ee8c with merge 26d2dcc...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2016
Rename ~/.multirust to ~/.rustup

This renames the ~/.multirust directory to ~/.rustup. The logic for the upgrade is in `do_rustup_home_upgrade`, and is defensive against errors. It amounts to moving an unrecognized `~/.rustup` folder to `~/.rustup.sh`, then moving a `~/.multirust` dir to `~/.rustup`.

If the upgrade fails then rustup will silently continue using `~/.multirust`, though this code path doesn't have tests, and is unlikely to happen...

After the upgrade, or during initial install this also sets up `~/.multirust` as a symlink to `~/.rustup` in case there are tools depending on it. This is intended to be temporary, to avoid breakage while getting it done quickly.

This needs some more manual testing before deployment but is ready for review.

r? @alexcrichton
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 2, 2016

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: brson
Pushing 26d2dcc to master...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants