rami3l

@kirawi @ryanavella Sorry for the long wait, but I am happy to inform you that @FranciscoTGouveia has come up with a new `indicatif` migration attempt in https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/pull/4426. Since this new...

@djc Just confirming, currently it's far from common but we do allow toolchain names with the `+` prefixes right? I don't see anything about that in `rustup toolchain link --help`...

> From what I'm seeing `+` prefixes are only specifically supported at the top level (in both rustup and proxy mode). I definitely don't recall any details but I think...

Hmmm the original error message was confusing but made sense exactly because `+` has been permitted at the beginning of the toolchain names... So I won't call this a deviation....

As I already said, this looks good to me as long as @djc feels the same. However we could potentially use more prudence in merging yet another breaking change between...

> I mean, do you have a concrete plan for 2.0? When will that be released? I still think the version number is not going to make much difference in...

> Given the amount of response on internals I have no reason to feel the beta has resulted in a substantial amount of testing. Maybe we should do a post...

@kryptan Thanks for reporting this issue! From the first glance rustup seems to be working correctly. A very old version of `rustc` is invoked, causing failures since the `--check-cfg` option...

@Feelfeel20088 Thanks for the additional context! Indeed, in this case the key is to either direct `rustup` to use the same toolchain as the entrypoint like I have suggested above,...

@djc This is a footgun, I agree with @joshka, but given that the normal `rustup` semantics is just `rustup +`, this is indeed the expected behavior, so no warnings should...