-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
Prepare 0.15.1 release #634
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
Open
djc
wants to merge
6
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
bump-0.15.1
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+60
−33
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ed86541
Bump version to 0.15.1
djc 15510ee
Take rustls 0.23.37
djc acf9695
Move const to the bottom
djc b545855
Avoid parsing TOML with sed
djc 087a0c0
Avoid hardcoding version in deb testing workflow
djc d73ea86
Update changelog
djc File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Some generated files are not rendered by default. Learn more about how customized files appear on GitHub.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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 don't love these auto-generated changelog notes compared to the previous ones. For example, changes in CI are not meaningful to end users.
It also doesn't match the format that was used for the previous releases (added, changed, removed, etc)
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 happy to review more lines. I kept this in because I thought it was relevant (see discussion in the PR about the minimum usable glibc version), but happy to remove it.
I don't think there's anything remaining in this list that's particularly worth calling out or explaining in more detail?
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.
Did you verify
mainhas no breaking changes? I think 0b3478c is breaking for example.In either case, I think we should maintain the added/changed/removed format that was used previously, with auto-generated changelog in the GitHub release for the full set of commits and the top-level release notes and CHANGELOG.md used for curated highlights.
There were a few functions added in the diff since last release and we've typically listed those explicitly:
I think new error variants were also listed explicitly in 0.15.0 and previous, and there were a couple of those.
This change also feels worth an explicit "changed" mention:
And probably this deprecation:
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.
Why do you think that's breaking? It doesn't look breaking to me.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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 generally conservative in applying a Rust-like understanding of what is/isn't semver breaking to C code. Especially in a case like this where it isn't an opaque struct, I think we have limited ability to mutate the definition in a semver safe way.
I'm fairly confident this is an ABI break (though we document that we don't care about those). On the API compat side I think it would break positional struct initializers at a minimum, and there might be a case for why that would matter for
rustls_client_hello_select_certified_keyinvocations. I suspect the typical path is to get yourrustls_client_hellofrom therustls_client_hello_callback.@ctz What do you think?
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.
Okay, but in the intended usage only the dylib allocates values of this type, right?
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.
Yep I believe that is correct in this instance.
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.
So it feels to me like if we move the new field to the end, it won't be practically breaking although it might be technically breaking. That seems like a decent way to get a 0.15.1 out?
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 would be fine with leaving it as-is, calling it 0.15.1, and documenting we made a breaking change in an API that has always been marked experimental. It doesn't feel like we gain much in this case by trying to decide if it's practically breaking or not. Even if we move the field to the end it feels most robust to just document it as a breaking change.
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.
Yep, agree.