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

Bump string_cache version to 0.2.5. #8992

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 15, 2015

Conversation

@asajeffrey
Copy link
Member

asajeffrey commented Dec 15, 2015

Atom::to_lower_case() now returns an Atom rather than a String,
so there are a few asserts that need a different collection of &s and *s.

Review on Reviewable

Atom::to_lower_case() now returns an Atom rather than a String,
so there are a few asserts that need a different collection of &s and *s.
@nox nox self-assigned this Dec 15, 2015
@nox
Copy link
Member

nox commented Dec 15, 2015

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Dec 15, 2015

📌 Commit 348a68f has been approved by nox

@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Dec 15, 2015

Testing commit 348a68f with merge 85b43ea...

bors-servo added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2015
Bump string_cache version to 0.2.5.

Atom::to_lower_case() now returns an Atom rather than a String,
so there are a few asserts that need a different collection of &s and *s.

<!-- Reviewable:start -->
[<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.png" height=40 alt="Review on Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/servo/8992)
<!-- Reviewable:end -->
@bors-servo
Copy link
Contributor

bors-servo commented Dec 15, 2015

@bors-servo bors-servo merged commit 348a68f into servo:master Dec 15, 2015
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details
@Ms2ger
Copy link
Contributor

Ms2ger commented Dec 16, 2015

Which means this should have been 0.3.0, right?

@asajeffrey
Copy link
Member Author

asajeffrey commented Dec 16, 2015

My read of rust-lang/rfcs#1105 is that this isn't a breaking change, since completely type-inferred code isn't affected.

@jdm
Copy link
Member

jdm commented Dec 16, 2015

I tend towards the view that changes that can require downstream users to modify their code count as breaking.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.