-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 110
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 to Rust 1.82 #2001
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Bump to Rust 1.82 #2001
Conversation
348c792
to
ee088e3
Compare
ee088e3
to
f2a4169
Compare
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 don't include unrelated changes in PRs like this. As a reviewer, I don't want to sort through what changed as a result of bumping to the new Rust version versus what drive-by fixes you made. If you feel that the unrelated changes are worthwhile (all of them look good to me), please open a separate PR. I would approve "reformat doc comments to correctly indent multi-line list items" in a heartbeat, for example.
All the changes are fixing warnings that were added sometime in the past 4 versions. That's one of the benefits of keeping up to date with stable rust; less churn in updating wrt rustc/clippy warnings (perhaps we could run CI clippy on latest stable?). The doc-comment formatting changes are all related to a new lint complaining about lists not being indented correctly, and all the cfg-related changes are related to the new check-cfgs lint, that makes sure you don't accidentally typo to e.g. a feature that doesn't exist (as in a couple cases here). And yes, rustc's unused-detection was improved, I think to check for when something declared |
Running Clippy on latest stable seems eminently reasonable. Updating our MSRV every month does not. It is very much the point of a Minimum Supported Rust Version that it should be the lowest possible version.
In the future, please add this level of commentary to the PR description before requesting review. |
Fair enough; I think I figured it was self-explanatory but obviously it wasn't. |
Description of Changes
This was discussed as something we wanted to do before the 1.0 release.
Expected complexity level and risk
1
cc @clockworklabs/devops