-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
Enable bitcoin_hashes v0.14.0 #76
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
cc @afilini |
ACK, that would be helpful for me, all the other libs like rust-bitcoin and bdk have already upgraded to hashes 0.14 |
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.
This would be nice for me even just for cleanness sake.
Cargo.toml
Outdated
unicode-normalization = { version = "=0.1.22", default-features = false, optional = true } | ||
|
||
[dev-dependencies] | ||
# Enabling the "rand" feature by default to run the benches | ||
bip39 = { path = ".", features = ["rand"] } | ||
bitcoin_hashes = ">=0.12,<0.14" # enable default features for test | ||
bitcoin_hashes = ">=0.12,<=0.14" # enable default features for test |
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.
This must be >= 0.12, <0.15
, otherwise 0.14.1 will be unusable even though it'd be compatible.
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.
Oh wow, TIL. Will fix, thanks.
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.
I'm going to go right ahead and 'trust don't verify'.
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.
The verification is easy, just evaluate 0 < 1
expression in your head. :)
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.
Oh I thought we were talking about 0.14
working for 0.14.0
but not for 0.14.1
.
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.
0.14 implies 0.14.0
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.
Ok, I have no idea what you were talking about in your original comment then. <= 14
is equivalent to < 15
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.
It's not. 0.14 == 0.14.0
0.14.1 > 0.14.0
0.14.1 < 0.15.0
And the above implies 0.14.1 > 0.14 which is a negation of 0.14.1 <= 0.14
So for <= 14
to be equivalent to < 15
we require all x
to satisfy x <= 0.14 <-> x <0.15
and we have a counter example for x = 0.14.1
. QED
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.
I get it now. Seems the confusion started when I wrote "I'm going to go right ahead and 'trust don't verify'." and I have no clue what I was thinking then. Your original review comment is actually perfectly clean.
Just call me retarded :)
Cargo.toml
Outdated
@@ -49,13 +49,13 @@ serde = { version = "1.0", default-features = false, features = [ "alloc" ], opt | |||
zeroize = { version = "1.5", features = ["zeroize_derive"], optional = true } | |||
|
|||
# Unexported dependnecies | |||
bitcoin_hashes = { version = ">=0.12, <=0.13", default-features = false } | |||
bitcoin_hashes = { version = ">=0.12, <=0.14", default-features = false } |
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.
This also needs to be <0.15
, it was already broken.
Hardware devices like the smallest binary possible, currently if one builds with latest `rust-bitcoin` and `rust-bip39` they get two versions of `bitcoin_hashes` in the dependency graph because we don't support the latest `bitcoin_hashes`. We use a range dependency for `bitcoin_hashes`. We can support the latest version with no code changes. However using the latest version causes the MSRV to increase. Add the latest version of `bitcoin_hashes` to the range dependency.
46ef0ed
to
2b47d40
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.
ACK 2b47d40
Oh this PR is no good anyway, |
Raised #79 to discuss the MSRV bump. Converting to draft until that resolves. |
Hardware devices like the smallest binary possible, currently if one builds with latest
rust-bitcoin
andrust-bip39
they get two versions ofbitcoin_hashes
in the dependency graph because we don't support the latestbitcoin_hashes
.We use a range dependency for
bitcoin_hashes
. We can support the latest version with no code changes. However using the latest version causes the MSRV to increase.Add the latest version of
bitcoin_hashes
to the range dependency.