Conversation
81ad512 to
74226cb
Compare
|
Should this also be in a 0.9.x version? I guess not, seeing the changelogs. Are we planning for a 0.10 release of rand_core? I understood it we want to release rand 0.10 with rand_core 0.9 and not have rand_core 0.10 for now. |
No, this is for v0.10. I wanted to make a pre-release using
Good point. So should we keep the old MSRV for |
Probably, yes. It would allow us to explicitly relax the MSRV policy to allow MSRV bumps in patch releases because of the MSRV-aware resolver. It may be even worth to release |
|
@newpavlov how does keeping some crates on rustc 1.63 help us relax the MSRV policy? The new resolver isn't available until 1.84. No comment on |
|
Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought you suggested to cut new releases of |
|
Looks like we can't test rand_core with rustc 1.63 once other crates are updated: The Solutions:
|
74226cb to
f0a0389
Compare
|
I removed all changes to
|
You forgot about cutting new breaking release of As a practical solution we also could modify the MSRV job to remove the crate from the workspace by executing |
It would be simpler. Motivation to persist with Motivation not to update the MSRV for the next Overall I'm tempted to leave |
f0a0389 to
bd5c7b9
Compare
bd5c7b9 to
0006804
Compare
CHANGELOG.mdentrySummary
Bump the MSRV to 1.85 (except
rand_chachawhich we plan to replace).Motivation
#1642 requires this MSRV bump. #1632 requires at least 1.75.