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

Library evaluation tracking issue #80

Closed
brson opened this Issue Mar 16, 2017 · 14 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
10 participants
@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brson

brson Mar 16, 2017

Contributor

cc @rust-lang-nursery/libs

Contributor

brson commented Mar 16, 2017

cc @rust-lang-nursery/libs

@Cldfire

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Cldfire

Cldfire Mar 29, 2017

Contributor

Change "flags" to "struct" in dsl should be marked as completed: #84

Contributor

Cldfire commented Mar 29, 2017

Change "flags" to "struct" in dsl should be marked as completed: #84

@Amanieu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Amanieu

Amanieu Mar 31, 2017

Contributor

Should we hold off on 1.0 until the crate is converted to use associated constants (#24)? The discussion in rust-lang/rust#29646 seems to be tending towards stabilizing them soon.

Contributor

Amanieu commented Mar 31, 2017

Should we hold off on 1.0 until the crate is converted to use associated constants (#24)? The discussion in rust-lang/rust#29646 seems to be tending towards stabilizing them soon.

@sfackler

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sfackler

sfackler Mar 31, 2017

I would love associated constants for bitflags, so I'd vote for yes if it looks like that'll be landing.

sfackler commented Mar 31, 2017

I would love associated constants for bitflags, so I'd vote for yes if it looks like that'll be landing.

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brson

brson Apr 7, 2017

Contributor

That would make bitflags incompatible with quite recent rust's right? That seems kinda undesirable.

Contributor

brson commented Apr 7, 2017

That would make bitflags incompatible with quite recent rust's right? That seems kinda undesirable.

@sfackler

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sfackler

sfackler Apr 7, 2017

It'd obviously require a major version bump on bitflags, but the ergonomic benefits of not having a bunch of random constants of different types thrown into the root module is pretty huge.

sfackler commented Apr 7, 2017

It'd obviously require a major version bump on bitflags, but the ergonomic benefits of not having a bunch of random constants of different types thrown into the root module is pretty huge.

@robo9k

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robo9k

robo9k Apr 11, 2017

Contributor

Add CI badges to Cargo.toml should be marked as completed due to #100

Contributor

robo9k commented Apr 11, 2017

Add CI badges to Cargo.toml should be marked as completed due to #100

@opilar

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@opilar

opilar May 6, 2017

Contributor

All issues are completed. The library is ready to be evaluated.

Contributor

opilar commented May 6, 2017

All issues are completed. The library is ready to be evaluated.

@crumblingstatue

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@crumblingstatue

crumblingstatue May 7, 2017

Contributor

Is it in any way problematic to release a bitflags 2.0 soon after it incorporates associated consts?

If so, I would prefer to wait for associated consts support before 1.0.

Contributor

crumblingstatue commented May 7, 2017

Is it in any way problematic to release a bitflags 2.0 soon after it incorporates associated consts?

If so, I would prefer to wait for associated consts support before 1.0.

@crumblingstatue

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@crumblingstatue

crumblingstatue May 7, 2017

Contributor

We might also want to consider #72, since pub(restricted) will land in next stable.

Then again, this could also be supported in bitflags 2.0.

Contributor

crumblingstatue commented May 7, 2017

We might also want to consider #72, since pub(restricted) will land in next stable.

Then again, this could also be supported in bitflags 2.0.

@theduke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@theduke

theduke May 12, 2017

Since associated constants are in FCP for stabilization, I'd rather wait a bit longer for a 1.0 rather than upgrading to 2.0 a few months later.

theduke commented May 12, 2017

Since associated constants are in FCP for stabilization, I'd rather wait a bit longer for a 1.0 rather than upgrading to 2.0 a few months later.

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@brson
Contributor

brson commented May 13, 2017

@alexcrichton

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexcrichton

alexcrichton Sep 9, 2017

Contributor

1.0 published!

Contributor

alexcrichton commented Sep 9, 2017

1.0 published!

@robinst

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robinst

robinst Sep 28, 2017

Yay! @alexcrichton could you add release notes for 1.0.0 here?: https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/bitflags/releases

(see #121)

robinst commented Sep 28, 2017

Yay! @alexcrichton could you add release notes for 1.0.0 here?: https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/bitflags/releases

(see #121)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment