-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 525
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bump itertools version to allow 0.12 #963
Conversation
It is never desired to publish crates with an unbounded upper version range, as there is no guarantee that future semver-breaking i.e. when this This version-range model allows |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please rebase to latest master to fix CI
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ cleanup-markdown = ["pulldown-cmark", "pulldown-cmark-to-cmark"] | |||
[dependencies] | |||
bytes = { version = "1", default-features = false } | |||
heck = "0.4" | |||
itertools = { version = ">=0.10, <0.12", default-features = false, features = ["use_alloc"] } | |||
itertools = { version = ">=0.10, <0.13", default-features = false, features = ["use_alloc"] } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Personally, I think this syntax explains better the intent of the version bounds.
itertools = { version = ">=0.10, <0.13", default-features = false, features = ["use_alloc"] } | |
itertools = { version = ">=0.10, <=0.12", default-features = false, features = ["use_alloc"] } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@caspermeijn one thing that might be hiding is that this version range, whether it is written as <0.13
or <=0.12
, allows 0.12.99999
. Some folks find that confusing with the second format, though I also prefer to read the version that is included rather than the one that is excluded 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, the intention is to include/allow 0.12 series, so I prefer to write is the suggested way.
Fixed in #948 |
Ran into a dependency conflict with using itertools 0.12 in our project that also depends on prost.
When I ran the tests everything appeared to work, so I'm not sure what the purpose of the
<0.12
restriction was.