I'm actually questioning if libraries keeping a "minimum rust version supported" is worth the trouble. Is it so bad to just track stable?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @seanmonstar
The problem I've hit is that the rust provided by distros don't always track stable. We've got one project that is tied to the rustc provided by the distro so dropping support for that version is breaking.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thestusmall @seanmonstar
Why is it important for you to use the dristronprovided compiler, rather than always installing from rustup? I feel like the distros actually makes maintaining OSS harder.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benj_fry @seanmonstar
It wouldn't take much effort at all. I'm all for people pushing their minimum support up and doing it often but it should be considered breaking change. I just don't expect patch releases to increase the min rustc vers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I probably should have been more clear in the first post. I like having a minimum version stated but I'm all for people increasing it often. I just consider changing it a breaking change and shouldn't happen in backward compatible releases.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
A difficulty with that is any crate that is already past 1.0 would need to go to 2.0 just to provide a new feature that a new compiler allows.
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.