From 78b29685b25c1b4838c591b2b0263561e4d5f0d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ed Page Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 11:05:23 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] fix: Clarify --lockfile-path semantics --- .../2024-08-15-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.81.md | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/posts/inside-rust/2024-08-15-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.81.md b/posts/inside-rust/2024-08-15-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.81.md index c3be7563b..c80922076 100644 --- a/posts/inside-rust/2024-08-15-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.81.md +++ b/posts/inside-rust/2024-08-15-this-development-cycle-in-cargo-1.81.md @@ -299,7 +299,8 @@ you are asking for dependencies of that instance of the project and an ephemeral One proposed compromise was a [`--lockfile-path`](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/5707) -flag that allowed callers to move the lockfile generation to a writeable location. +flag that allowed callers to override the lockfile location used by the project, +allowing callers to use a writeable location. [Ifropc](https://github.com/Ifropc) drove the conversation on this and we discussed it further among the Cargo team. For the design, we decided to be consistent in behavior with `--manifest-path`