So Diesel 2.0 is a thing that is happening this year, and I'm debating whether I should write a blog post about it. None of the planned changes are likely to affect most users (and we have the same "easy migration" standards we have for deprecations. 1/
-
Show this thread
-
1.4 -> 2.0 won't be any harder than any minor release if you had `#[deny(deprecated)]`, but for various reasons there are a few changes we want to make that can't go through a deprecation cycle 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
But none of these breaking changes are expected to affect most users, which is sorta the point. If they were huge changes, we wouldn't be making them. 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
So I'm a bit torn here, since I think there's value in saying early and often that this release won't involve major breakage, just stuff that can't be deprecated. On the other hand the post is like "here's some stuff that we made less broken. You won't notice" 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
But I worry that pointing out some of the stuff we're fixing just makes us look bad since it's mostly "oh we shouldn't have let folks couple to this, we need something more abstract than what we have". And we don't expect most users to be affected...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @sgrif
This sounds super interesting and valuable, to be honest. I’m still nervous about doing things in a less than ideal way simply because best practices for Rust are still evolving. Seeing what you did “wrong” previously can help others prevent similar mistakes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
http://discourse.diesel.rs has it all in more detail than a blog post will go into
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.