Align 6-week cycle check with beta promotion instead of stable release. by kennytm · Pull Request #52940 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)

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 andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Conversation6 Commits1 Checks0 Files changed

Conversation

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

[ Show hidden characters]({{ revealButtonHref }})

The regression check is to make beta promotion easier, so it makes more
sense to use the Tuesday of the release week (T-2) as the end point of the
regression prevention, instead of Thursday (T-0). But since the beta
promotion PR is sent at Tuesday evening at UTC, the protection should
include the whole Tuesday as well, meaning the 6-week cycle will start from
Wednesdays.

This will also move the start of the regression protection week one day
earlier.

The regression check is to make beta promotion easier, so it makes more sense to use the Tuesday of the release week (T-2) as the end point of the regression prevention, instead of Thursday (T-0). But since the beta promotion PR is sent at Tuesday evening at UTC, the protection should include the whole Tuesday as well, meaning the 6-week cycle will start from Wednesdays.

This will also move the start of the regression protection week one day earlier.

r? @alexcrichton

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

📌 Commit 0da7da8 has been approved by alexcrichton

bors added S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

and removed S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

labels

Aug 2, 2018

📌 Commit 0da7da8 has been approved by alexcrichton

cramertj added a commit to cramertj/rust that referenced this pull request

Aug 2, 2018

…eek, r=alexcrichton

Align 6-week cycle check with beta promotion instead of stable release.

The regression check is to make beta promotion easier, so it makes more sense to use the Tuesday of the release week (T-2) as the end point of the regression prevention, instead of Thursday (T-0). But since the beta promotion PR is sent at Tuesday evening at UTC, the protection should include the whole Tuesday as well, meaning the 6-week cycle will start from Wednesdays.

This will also move the start of the regression protection week one day earlier.

cramertj added a commit to cramertj/rust that referenced this pull request

Aug 2, 2018

…eek, r=alexcrichton

Align 6-week cycle check with beta promotion instead of stable release.

The regression check is to make beta promotion easier, so it makes more sense to use the Tuesday of the release week (T-2) as the end point of the regression prevention, instead of Thursday (T-0). But since the beta promotion PR is sent at Tuesday evening at UTC, the protection should include the whole Tuesday as well, meaning the 6-week cycle will start from Wednesdays.

This will also move the start of the regression protection week one day earlier.

cramertj added a commit to cramertj/rust that referenced this pull request

Aug 3, 2018

…eek, r=alexcrichton

Align 6-week cycle check with beta promotion instead of stable release.

The regression check is to make beta promotion easier, so it makes more sense to use the Tuesday of the release week (T-2) as the end point of the regression prevention, instead of Thursday (T-0). But since the beta promotion PR is sent at Tuesday evening at UTC, the protection should include the whole Tuesday as well, meaning the 6-week cycle will start from Wednesdays.

This will also move the start of the regression protection week one day earlier.

kennytm added a commit to kennytm/rust that referenced this pull request

Aug 4, 2018

…eek, r=alexcrichton

Align 6-week cycle check with beta promotion instead of stable release.

The regression check is to make beta promotion easier, so it makes more sense to use the Tuesday of the release week (T-2) as the end point of the regression prevention, instead of Thursday (T-0). But since the beta promotion PR is sent at Tuesday evening at UTC, the protection should include the whole Tuesday as well, meaning the 6-week cycle will start from Wednesdays.

This will also move the start of the regression protection week one day earlier.

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request

Aug 4, 2018

Rollup of 14 pull requests

Successful merges:

• #51919 (Provide {to,from}_{ne,le,be}_bytes functions on integers)
• #52940 (Align 6-week cycle check with beta promotion instead of stable release.)
• #52968 (App-lint-cability)
• #52969 (rustbuild: fix local_rebuild)
• #52995 (Remove unnecessary local in await! generator)
• #52996 (RELEASES.md: fix the hash_map::Entry::or_default link)
• #53001 (privacy: Fix an ICE in path_is_private_type)
• #53003 (Stabilize --color and --error-format options in rustdoc)
• #53022 (volatile operations docs: clarify that this does not help wrt. concurrency)
• #53024 (Specify reentrancy gurantees of Once::call_once)
• #53041 (Fix invalid code css rule)
• #53047 (Make entire row of doc search results clickable)
• #53050 (Make left column of rustdoc search results narrower)
• #53062 (Remove redundant field names in structs)

Labels

S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.