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

Use dep: and optional dependency feature ? syntax #1608

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 30, 2024
Merged

Use dep: and optional dependency feature ? syntax #1608

merged 4 commits into from
Mar 30, 2024

Conversation

BD103
Copy link
Contributor

@BD103 BD103 commented Mar 30, 2024

This PR comes in 2 parts:

The first uses the dep: syntax for the printing feature depending on quote, which removes the unused implicit feature.

The second uses the ? syntax in the proc-macro feature, so quote is not pulled in as a dependency if printing is not enabled.

Unfortunately, both of these changes raise the MSRV back to 1.60. Before finishing my changes in CI, I wanted to confirm that this was fine.

BD103 added 3 commits March 29, 2024 22:06
This syntax needs Rust 1.60, so it will require a MSRV bump. If this is not wanted, I would be willing to revert it.
Copy link
Owner

@dtolnay dtolnay left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

1.60 is fine. Thanks!

This change is using 6e8a372 for reference. I'm not entirely sure what the purpost of `manifestpath` was, so I may have done something incorrect.
@dtolnay dtolnay merged commit 585df47 into dtolnay:master Mar 30, 2024
17 checks passed
@BD103 BD103 deleted the deps-features branch March 30, 2024 02:47
@BD103
Copy link
Contributor Author

BD103 commented Mar 30, 2024

Thank you! (That was fast 😄)

@dtolnay
Copy link
Owner

dtolnay commented Mar 30, 2024

Published in 2.0.57.

@joshlf
Copy link

joshlf commented Apr 2, 2024

Just a heads up that the MSRV bump broke zerocopy: google/zerocopy#1085. I know that there's no ecosystem consensus on whether MSRV bumps should be considered breaking changes; just wanted to provide a data point.

If syn's MSRV policy is to not consider MSRV bumps to be breaking changes, it'd be great if that were documented somewhere so we'd know to be aware of the risk.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants