Remove rust-analyzer-compat ci check #315
Merged
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
### What Remove rust-analyzer-compat ci check. ### Why We added this when we seemed to be frequently breaking rust-analyzer which slowed down dev envs for devs. But it's been more than 1 year since I've seen anything break rust-analyzer. RA continues to get better, and I don't think we need to keep running this check. There have been at times problems with the check, although not frequent, it's part of our process that isn't serving the need it was created for any longer.
sisuresh
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Remove rust-analyzer-compat ci check.
Why
We added this when we seemed to be frequently breaking rust-analyzer which slowed down dev envs for devs. But it's been more than 1 year since I've seen anything break rust-analyzer. RA continues to get better, and I don't think we need to keep running this check. There have been at times problems with the check, although not frequent, it's part of our process that isn't serving the need it was created for any longer.