As far as I know, nothing really changed as a result of them stepping down.
This is not valid JSON.
That’s you assuming all things are equal.
What’s more, there was a recent discussion about why the derive feature is recommended in serde, and one of the points brought up was that the versions for both crates basically have to be equal. I couldn’t help but wonder, would this be a problem if the releases actually followed semver? Theoretically, it shouldn’t matter what versions you use, as long as they’re above a certain minor version and the major versions match. But since everything is a patch, we have to pin the two crates together somehow.
Probably a spicy take, but I think any API being used by a macro should be made public. A macro shouldn’t be the only way to do something; it should just be a way to remove the boilerplate required to do it.
There are also plenty of purposeful semver violations. For example, serde
makes basically no attempt to follow semver, and any pleas to do otherwise fall on deaf ears.
I’ve seen similar things done on other communities on Lemmy, and it always drives me nuts. Every single post on c/Technology is like this, making the whole community feel soulless and inactive.
Also, the amount of low quality questions or posts thinking they’re in r/PlayRust that would be posted would drive me up the wall. I’ve been glad to be away from that.
I think people consider it a fiasco because of the amount of backlash, drama, and accusations that surrounded it. The whole thing showed failures in the way things were decided and communicated as well.
Is there any proof of this? I think one of the replies on the original thread is wise:
Maybe take hearsay from an anonymous Internet catgirl with a grain of salt.
The counter doesn’t work on my phone, either.
Yep, it is.
This will also hopefully limit the number of issues opened that are resolved with a “you must enable X feature.”
You can download the code directly from crates.io still.
Yeah, I’ve noticed this happening elsewhere on Lemmy instances, too.
As far as I know, no one has yet been able to reproduce the binary with the source code, so I don’t think the contents of it are confirmed at all.
If someone does fork serde, can they at least make it so it actually follows semver?
You’re right, I missed that. That’s unfortunate.
Hey, maybe this will actually lead to standardization of feature documentation? It’s been in terrible shape for years. The fact that optional dependencies and features have been treated nearly the same by cargo, but treated differently by crates.io, makes it useless for discovering features for crates. Up until now, my go-to method is to examine the Cargo.toml
file directly, and if I can’t figure out what a feature does there I look directly at the source code.
This ridiculous article is what led me to unsubscribe from his newsletter altogether.