run results of cargo --fix for edition 2021#714
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
arrow
|
|
||
| macro_rules! create_native { | ||
| ($native_ty:ty,$($impl_pattern:pat)|+) => { | ||
| ($native_ty:ty,$($impl_pattern:pat_param)|+) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@alamb Either I have something misconfigured locally or this change breaks compilation with the version 1.52.1 configured in rust-toolchain:
error: invalid fragment specifier `pat_param`
--> arrow/src/alloc/types.rs:39:22
|
39 | ($native_ty:ty,$($impl_pattern:pat_param)|+) => {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= help: valid fragment specifiers are `ident`, `block`, `stmt`, `expr`, `pat`, `ty`, `lifetime`, `literal`, `path`, `meta`, `tt`, `item` and `vis`
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@alamb I think we need to somehow pin the rust toolchain
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just noticed rust-toolchain file is not part of the repo and I only added that locally at some point. That means this was actually a problem on my side, arrow-rs requiring a newer version is totally fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jhorstmann -- I backported this change to the proposed arrow 5.3.0. Given your experience, I think I should probably undo that change and make a new 5.3.0 RC candidate.
@jimexist / @jhorstmann any thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's either that or you note in the release notes that the minimal support rust version is 1.53.
rust edition 2021 is likely land in rust 1.56. and given my understanding that arrow does not promise a specific back-compatible yet I feel like that users are supposed to upgrade to latest stable. but my understanding could be wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
arrow does not promise a specific back-compatible yet
I now also remember that discussion and agree with it. So from my perspective it is not necessary to revert this change.
We should probably write down this policy in the README if it is not already there yet.
Co-authored-by: Jiayu Liu <[email protected]>
3 participants
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #.
Rationale for this change
What changes are included in this PR?
Are there any user-facing changes?