Jacob Pratt

It did not work for me either. Happy to provide any information (including logs) that may be of use.

> Ok... is not so simple.... Lot of tests fail 😢 . Unfortunately not every cases are rendered in a module... I should have known better than to only check...

I'm the same way, really. Lots going on! No rush on my end, naturally.

I've strongly disagree with the decision to close this. Distributing an executable that is run without the user knowing is inherently a security vulnerability. Doubly so when the executable cannot...

Wow, that's awesome! I didn't even know this was being worked on actively. As someone who would like _love_ to use this in CI, how feasible is it to try...

That's not bad at all! I'll definitely add in a CI check.

@alexcrichton @matklad Any update on what blockers are for this issue? It doesn't seem like there should be anything holding this back.

Hm, that's a fairly simple one. My intuition would certainly lean towards 1-based.

Ok, that's pretty much what I knew was possible. Just wasn't sure if it was actionable here. Closing as inactionable, let's look forward to rustc integration!

Procedurally, is an ACP sufficient? This feels like a relatively large change.