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

Decide on MSRV #788

Closed
bjoernQ opened this issue Sep 13, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #798
Closed

Decide on MSRV #788

bjoernQ opened this issue Sep 13, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #798
Assignees

Comments

@bjoernQ
Copy link
Contributor

bjoernQ commented Sep 13, 2023

See #787

I like the CURRENT_VERSION - 1 idea and with 7b45dca that should be easy to implement

@jessebraham
Copy link
Member

Is there any reason not to just use 1.67.0, which is currently required for the async example, and remove the distinction there altogether? I don't think there are really any new language features we want to take advantage of (correct me if I'm wrong) so giving some headroom would be nice.

@bjoernQ
Copy link
Contributor Author

bjoernQ commented Sep 14, 2023

Also fine for me. Don't have a strong opinion on this other than having to pin a (transitive) dependency because of the MSRV is not a good thing

@MabezDev
Copy link
Member

I don't think we should blindly upgrade to CURRENT_VERSION - 1 whenever its available, but if there is a feature we want we can just go ahead and update provided its at least one version behind from current stable. We could also of course scrap that idea and just address it on a case-by-case basis.

@bjoernQ
Copy link
Contributor Author

bjoernQ commented Sep 14, 2023

#779 additionally requires toml_edit to be pinned in esp32c6-lp-procmacros

If we need to bump MSRV we should make sure it's at least CURRENT_VERSION - 1 or older.
But we won't bump the MSRV just because we can

@bjoernQ
Copy link
Contributor Author

bjoernQ commented Sep 18, 2023

The only thing left to do to close this issue is bump to MSRV 1.67 and unpin the toml_edit dependency

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Archived in project
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants