Brainstorm with me. How plausible is it for quickcheck to break ties with rand?https://github.com/BurntSushi/quickcheck/issues/241 …
-
-
Replying to @burntsushi5
Commenting here since it's tangential, and I don't want to derail your issue, but I think we really need to decide as a community what we consider to be the norm for compiler version support. I think we can be more aggressive than other langs, but different crates have diff needs
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @sgrif
I agree. To be clear though, if it were only about MSRV, I could overlook that, at least for rand. I still like the LTS idea that boats/aturon proposed. It provides a rallying point. Adding MSRV to Cargo.toml in order to improve failure modes is also a good start.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @burntsushi5
LTS RFC is definitely the most compelling solution I've seen so far. I also agree adding this to Cargo.toml would be great, especially if it affected version resolution
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @burntsushi5
With MSRV in version resolution we can have the cake and eat it too. I'm not going to support LTS Rust versions in crates I publish, and will only end up having spats with angry LTS users I'll break. With MSRV it all works, for everyone, automatically.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I think it would be fine to not adhere to LTS if there was one. But it would also be fine for others to use that criteria in determining http://whether.to use that crate or not. If there was an LTS, it is unlikely that i would even target it for all my crates.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.