Skip to content
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

Relax MSRV of utils to 1.38 #1156

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Relax MSRV of utils to 1.38 #1156

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

taiki-e
Copy link
Member

@taiki-e taiki-e commented Dec 8, 2024

Implements #1075 (comment).

This is not a PR intended to be merged as is, and I think it is fine to relax MSRV to 1.56, 1.52, or worse, 1.43, but I'm quite negative with relaxing to 1.42 or lower because it decreases efficiency (see crossbeam-utils/src/sync/once_lock.rs).

cc @mgeier

@taiki-e taiki-e force-pushed the taiki-e/utils-msrv branch from d114eaa to 1c0bb4a Compare December 8, 2024 17:41
@taiki-e
Copy link
Member Author

taiki-e commented Dec 8, 2024

Relax to 1.56, which considered non-controversial, has been done in #1157.

@mgeier
Copy link

mgeier commented Dec 16, 2024

Thanks for the heads-up!

I appreciate any lowering of the MSRV, but I also fully agree that it shouldn't be done if there are real disadvantages (like a performance hit).

I still think that it is a problem to combine different independent tools with different MSRVs into a single crate.

Even if this PR would be merged as is, it would still not avoid any future MSRV bumps affecting all files of the crate even if it wouldn't be needed for a specific file.

For the time being, I will continue using my hack to grab cache_padded.rs without being restricted by the MSRV (mgeier/rtrb#115). I would prefer to have it as a proper Cargo.toml dependency, but IMHO it's not worth accepting the unnecessary MSRV increase.

@taiki-e taiki-e closed this Dec 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants