Fix: "project" should be "package" #11131
Conversation
This was accidentially overlooked when writing the documentation. Signed-off-by: Matthias Beyer <mail@beyermatthias.de>
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @ehuss (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for this! You definitely were faster than I was!
To give more context to this PR. There were a few docs that contained [project] instead of [package] which isn't documented anywhere and really shouldn't be used anywhere. In the early days of cargo (2014 IIRC can't find the change) [project] was renamed to [package] and its remnants can be found in different places to this day (a lot in the testsuite).
|
@bors r+ |
|
@bors retry |
|
Testing bors fix |
|
@bors r=epage |
|
There still seems to be an error with this. I'll cherry-pick the commit and add it to a branch of mine that needs it. That way it can get merged. |
|
@bors r- |
Reduce references to `[project]` within cargo There was an issue (#11129) with `[project]` being put in the docs but nothing else stating what `[project]` is. This was an oversight by me when writing the docs as `[project]` is still supported in cargo. [Back in 2014](86b2a2a) `[project]` was [renamed to `[package]`](#3388 (comment)), since then it has kinda sat as something that exists and is supported but not really. I brought this up in a [zulip thread](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/246057-t-cargo/topic/removal.20of.20.60.5Bproject.5D.60), and it was suggested that we could show a warning when `[project]` is used in a manifest of a _top-level_ crate. To go slightly further than this I tried to change as many references from `[project]` to `[package]` as possible. This should hopefully help with confusion between `[project]` and `[package]` in the future. This PR also includes a cherry-picked commit from #11131 as it was having issues with bors and fits well with the changes that are being made in this PR. This should ideally be reviewed commit by commit
|
Close as CI seems broken with no reason (why appveyor revives?!), and the commit is cherry-picked by #11135. Thank you for the quick fix anyway! |
This was accidentially overlooked when writing the documentation.
Closes #11129
@Muscraft I hope I was faster than you!