Backward Non-compabile changes between 2.0.0-beta.3 and 2.0.0-rc3

[haochenuw]

It seems between these releases the following

pub struct WriteFixedArrayLength {}

was removed. This is a breaking change since clients could be using the struct in their code. Could this be fixed?

[VictorKoenders]

Relevant PR: #625
The entire array implementation was not compatible with bincode 1, so we ripped it out and fixed that issue.

That PR ends with:

They may be re-added in the future.

So I think this option is still open

[VictorKoenders]

One question I have is why you would want to care if bincode writes array lengths or not. What is your use case?

[haochenuw]

I am not a direct user so cannot comment on that. If the user shouldn't care, why was this struct exposed to the public?

…

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 9:40 PM Trangar ***@***.***> wrote: One question I have is why you would want to care if bincode writes array lengths or not. What is your use case? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#724 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA7YZSCVFCAQM3E6FHVXMUDZZYL4XAVCNFSM6AAAAABPKD6Q3SVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGOJSHAYDQNZUGY> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[VictorKoenders]

If the user shouldn't care, why was this struct exposed to the public?

That's why we removed it 😄

[ZoeyR]

Backwards compatibility is not something we guarantee before the final stable release of 2.0. If absolute stability is necessary the 1.0 branch should be used instead.