Simplify updates #4404
Simplify updates #4404
Conversation
I don't think this complexity is worth it? Looking at the changes from when this indirection was introduced does not make it clearer.
| .into_iter() | ||
| .map(|(p, s)| (PackageUpdate::Toolchain(p), s)) | ||
| .collect(); | ||
| show_channel_updates(cfg, t)?; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry, but I'm a bit confused about this... Do you know why are we showing channel updates during self update in the first place? That might help with understanding the current behavior...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
#1605 mentions
This will make sure people who do
rustup update stablestill get a new rustup
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@djc Thanks for mentioning that PR!
After another it looks like this change is basically inlining the show_channel_updates() calls, and the only difference is that in the original version might do other fallible things before printing the channel updates.
Given that, maybe I have misunderstood your original commit message, which gave me the impression of something related to --no-self-update. How about "Show channel updates even if self update is not permitted", so it's clear that it's related to SelfUpdatePermission?
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Slow followup from