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

Publish zerovec-derive v0.10.4 #5196

Closed
Diggsey opened this issue Jul 8, 2024 · 6 comments
Closed

Publish zerovec-derive v0.10.4 #5196

Diggsey opened this issue Jul 8, 2024 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@Diggsey
Copy link

Diggsey commented Jul 8, 2024

Cargo audit is currently flagging up https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2024-0346.html which I believe is fixed on master? But not yet published.

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Yeah, what happened here is that:

  • We accidentally published an advisory where zerovec-derive 0.10.3 is included as an affected version (it isn't)
  • We haven't merged the bumped cargo.toml versions to main. They exist on ind/zerovec-* tags.
    • @sffc you mentioned you didn't think mergebacks were necessary in our 2.0 transitional state. Do you still hold this opinion? I think we may have also gotten our wires crossed between "making a merge commit" and "merging back cargo.toml changes" since I would have been asking about both.

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Also fixing the advisory in rustsec/advisory-db#2007

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member

PR for a new zerovec version in #5197, but we don't really need it now that the advisory is published?

I'm going to mark this as closed unless tooling stays broken somehow.

@Diggsey
Copy link
Author

Diggsey commented Jul 8, 2024

@Manishearth Thanks!

@thgoebel
Copy link

thgoebel commented Jul 9, 2024

FYI for anyone stumbling upon this: Github's advisory is not yet synced with the updated Rustsec advisory. Github still shows 0.10.4 as the patched version: GHSA-74r5-g7vc-j2v2 (archived)
I assume/hope that their bot will pick it up later...

@sffc
Copy link
Member

sffc commented Jul 10, 2024

@sffc you mentioned you didn't think mergebacks were necessary in our 2.0 transitional state. Do you still hold this opinion? I think we may have also gotten our wires crossed between "making a merge commit" and "merging back cargo.toml changes" since I would have been asking about both.

As far as Cargo.toml versions in the repo, they are by definition only snapshot versions. The only real versions are the tagged versions. I don't see the benefit of merging those changes into main.

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants