bors-ng VS cargo-xtask

You can further protect main branch by using a rollup approach (see Bors for an example) where the pre-merge tests are run against the combination of those PRs currently proposed for merging, which limits the possibility that two PRs look OK but together break something.

Completely independent implementations of the same underlying concept, one of which was written pretty much just for the rust project, and the other was written as a more general tool and service.

Merge commit (via bors) because I hate squash merges.

Maybe the author does not know that there's https://bors.tech which is a publicly available Bors instance. There's absolutely no operational cost involved except for the initial setup.

Or images. On pages like https://bors.tech and https://foodpartners.us the "bloat" is all images. The images are bigger than they were in the 1990's because they look better, even if you don't think they communicate more "information" people may still want them.

According to the README, it bisects. It doesn't matter much for me, though - the batches in our case were never big.

https://github.com/bors-ng/bors-ng/blob/master/README.md#how...

Sounds like they settled on the bors model of a batching merge queue. Gitlab's merge trains instead speculatively run all of the merges at once which gives more precise data at a higher cost and longer time, if your number of parallel runners is limited.

💡 Inspired by matklad/cargo-xtask and based on 🏃‍♂️ Write your Rust project scripts in task.rs from the Rust ecosystem.

Using a cargo-xtask task to generate them as a manual step (inlyne currently does this)

As someone else said just is good for that job, or you could implement an xtask helper for these things and setup a suitable development environment with that: https://github.com/matklad/cargo-xtask/

Well tools like cornucopia, prisma-rust-client, protoc-gen-tonic, they don't generate in build.rs, but instead provide either a cli to be called ahead of time, or provide a library that can be called by your own binary (which should generally follow the xtask pattern)

If I understand, this is a tool for when working on the project itself? Akin to a helper script? You could go the cargo install route as already pointed out but there is also the xtask convention.

For simple cli apps for internal use, such as cargo-xtasks, I prefer pico_args due to its fast compile times.

For developer-oriented stuff, there's tools like xshell and cargo-xtask. For operator tasks that need to run in a deployed environment, it's not usually a big lift to add CLI subcommands to your binary. It's certainly more boilerplate and inertia than doing stuff in a live REPL, though, and sometimes difficult to recommend for truly one-off situations.