Skip to content

Conversation

@mmcco
Copy link
Contributor

@mmcco mmcco commented Jan 4, 2016

These should probably be submitted upstream. They're inevitably going to
complicate merges, and because they're non-functional changes this just
isn't worth our time.

These should probably be submitted upstream. They're inevitably going to complicate merges, and because they're non-functional changes this just isn't worth our time.
@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Jan 4, 2016

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 4, 2016

📌 Commit 810c035 has been approved by eddyb

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Jan 4, 2016

@mmcco
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcco commented Jan 4, 2016

Agreed. I'll be far from shocked if that patch is ignored or rejected, but it's worth a shot.

@constancebello
Copy link

Sorry to see that these changes were causing issues :(, FWIW I'm entirely okay with them being reverted.

@mmcco Thank you for sending that patch and CCing me, I've posted some additional information about it to the thread.

@mmcco
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmcco commented Jan 10, 2016

At this point, I think we should merge this PR and reapply the whitespace fixes if upstream eventually accepts them. When that happens, I'll submit a PR to pull new changes from upstream.

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Jan 10, 2016

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jan 10, 2016

📌 Commit 810c035 has been approved by eddyb

nagisa added a commit to nagisa/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 11, 2016
These should probably be submitted upstream. They're inevitably going to complicate merges, and because they're non-functional changes this just isn't worth our time.
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 11, 2016
@bors bors merged commit 810c035 into rust-lang:master Jan 12, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

4 participants