Publish 1.0 about autocfg HOT 7 CLOSED

Published!

from autocfg.

I would be OK with that -- especially with #19 that will allow you to check pretty much anything. Would you care to review that, and maybe audit the API in general for 1.0? (Perhaps you already have...)

from autocfg.

I've looked through the API surface of the crate, everything seems reasonable! The only two non super obvious bits were:

• rerun_path and rerun_env names are not self-explanatory. return_if_x_changed would be more obvious at the call site, but it probably doesn't make sense to do a rename, as it's a really minor issue, the explicit version is significantly more verbose (though this shouldn't matter much for build scripts?), and we already have an existing API.

• Error type does not implement the new Source method, but it's not unclear how to support that, without some hockey bootstraping scheme for autocfg itself.

from autocfg.

Oh, in Cargo.toml, license = "Apache-2.0/MIT" I think should be spelled as license = "Apache-2.0 OR MIT", but I am not sure if Cargo 1.0 supports this.

from autocfg.

• rerun_path and rerun_env names are not self-explanatory. return_if_x_changed would be more obvious at the call site, but it probably doesn't make sense to do a rename, as it's a really minor issue, the explicit version is significantly more verbose (though this shouldn't matter much for build scripts?), and we already have an existing API.

I see your point, but yes, the added verbosity would seem unfortunate. I think it's ok to excuse the terse names because the API surface is so small.

• Error type does not implement the new Source method, but it's not unclear how to support that, without some hockey bootstraping scheme for autocfg itself.

Yeah, I think that bootstrap complexity would not be justified. I expect most cases will just be unwrapped anyway, so the Debug implementation is really what matters.

Oh, in Cargo.toml, license = "Apache-2.0/MIT" I think should be spelled as license = "Apache-2.0 OR MIT", but I am not sure if Cargo 1.0 supports this.

AFAICT Cargo doesn't validate the license at all, leaving it to the registry:
https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/7059559d71de3fffe8c8cb81e32f323454aa96c5/src/cargo/core/manifest.rs#L75-L79

from autocfg.

Yeah, indeed, Cargo doesn’t do validation here. So, we should change this to OR, because that’s what standard says.

rust-lang/cargo#2039

from autocfg.

@cuviper I think it might be the good idea to announce the crate on urlo/r/rust? I have a feeling that this crate is barely known (19 ⭐, and I know it only because I was browsing cargo's issue tracker the other day and noticed alexcrichton mentioning it in passing). At the same time, I think there will be ecosystem-wide goodness if everyone converges to this crate.

Also, "MSRV is 1.0.0" is just to cool to not brag about :-)

from autocfg.