Conversation
Dry-run check results |
11472fe to
ccd8f31
Compare
|
Backup (taken automatically with https://github.com/marcoieni/multicheese in case you are curious!)
|
a4540e6 to
83f09a2
Compare
| protection.pattern, | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unlike protection rules, multiple rulesets can apply at the same time, so you can be confident that every rule targeting a branch in your repository will be evaluated when someone interacts with that branch
I removed this because we need multiple rules to interact with the same branch (different bypass list for normal push and force push).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case we should make the name required when there are multiple identical patterns, because we used the pattern as an identifier.
6f35480 to
c3d0cbd
Compare
|
Here's how I tested the "stable" and "stable - force-pushes" rules.
The user in the |
6e4c63c to
c67ec1b
Compare
|
There's one issue: |
0dee3f1 to
f614447
Compare
|
We are relatively close to making the unrolled PRs by bors, instead of rustc-perf. If this can wait a few weeks, rust-timer will no longer need that access. |
f614447 to
dbe30bf
Compare
#2343 is a small change that can be reverted easily. Since this is the only blocker to have rulesets in the rust I'm in favor of creating the team. What do you think? 🤔 |
|
Sure, go ahead, it's a small change 👍 |
1b14c6d to
c62adff
Compare
| let bypass_actors = self.bypass_actors(expected_repo, branch_protection).await?; | ||
|
|
||
| Ok(construct_ruleset(branch_protection, bypass_actors)) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this function is only two lines but I left it like this to minimize the git diff of the PR.
We could inline the construct_ruleset free function later
| bypass_mode: RulesetBypassMode::Always, | ||
| }) | ||
| }) | ||
| .collect(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this piece of code was moved up
c62adff to
8c81777
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
b563c85 to
f1b0898
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
21063a4 to
d9ec7fa
Compare
| ) -> api::Ruleset { | ||
| use api::*; | ||
|
|
||
| let branch_protection_mode = get_branch_protection_mode(branch_protection); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As noted by Kobzol:
we shouldn't turn off requiring PRs when bors is enabled, because that will turn off required PRs for everyone
| pattern = "try-perf" | ||
| allowed-merge-apps = ["rust-timer"] | ||
| allowed-merge-teams = ["rust-timer"] | ||
| pr-required = false |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| pr-required = false |
Shouldn't be needed, as rust-timer bypasses this ruleset anyway (same below).
| prevent-force-push = false | ||
|
|
||
| [[branch-protections]] | ||
| pattern = "*" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have to check whether this still protects tags (like 1.94.1).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it doesn't. Let's do a followup PR
95f7537 to
af4704b
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| [[branch-protections]] | ||
| pattern = "*" | ||
| allowed-merge-apps = ["promote-release"] | ||
| prevent-update = true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the classic branch protection allows deletion, while this doesn't.
Jakub here says he prefers to prevent deletion for this and "*/**/*"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, I didn't realize deletion was allowed before. I don't think it's super important, but I guess we can try to be more strict and see if preventing deletion breaks anything.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
a1caee4 to
37806ed
Compare
37806ed to
ab71fb6
Compare
ab71fb6 to
1bdc203
Compare
|
This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
ubiratansoares
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From my end, I think we are good to go.
































Is there a preferred moment when we want to merge this?
git SHA of each branch before the switch: