Conversation
Contributor
|
@vmx LGTM. Please note that I believe in theory, the change in |
hanabi1224
approved these changes
Apr 27, 2026
Member
Author
|
Very good points. Yes, let's do a |
Member
Author
|
I've changed my mind and also did a patch release for |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The plan would be to release a v0.19.5 version of the main
multihashcrate as it shouldn't really be a breaking change, it just changes internal implementations.There is a large MSRV bump, but even Rust 1.81 is already over 1.5 years old. If someone really needs to support older versions, they can fix multihash to v0.19.4. If it turn out to be an issue for anyone, please open an issue.
@hanabi1224 As you can see my idea would be to release this as a patch release for
multihash. Also patch releases formultihash-deriveandmultihash-derive-implBut release a minor formultihash-codetable, due to not implementing that customWritefor no-std. Does that sounds correct to you, or do you propose something else (you feedback would really be appreciated)?