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

0.99.7 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state #274

Closed
MOZGIII opened this issue Oct 4, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed

0.99.7 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state #274

MOZGIII opened this issue Oct 4, 2019 · 7 comments

Comments

@MOZGIII
Copy link

MOZGIII commented Oct 4, 2019

I'm having an error that seems to be fixed at 0.99.7 tag. Can you please audit the crates.io package state? I'd recommend yanking it if the inconsistency is confirmed.

@MOZGIII MOZGIII changed the title 0.3.0-alpha.18 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state 0.99.7 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state Oct 4, 2019
@MOZGIII MOZGIII changed the title 0.99.7 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state 0.99.8 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state Oct 4, 2019
@MOZGIII MOZGIII changed the title 0.99.8 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state 0.99.7 crates.io upload is not consistent with the repo state Oct 4, 2019
@MOZGIII
Copy link
Author

MOZGIII commented Oct 4, 2019

The issue is with 0.99.7 version.

@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Contributor

We merged the release prep in #239, and cut the release the same date in https://github.com/async-rs/async-std/releases/tag/v0.99.7. The release tag points to the merge commit of the PR.

I'm not sure how to review whether the release on crates.io matches the release tag. Could you perhaps share more details on how we can check this?

@MOZGIII
Copy link
Author

MOZGIII commented Oct 5, 2019

I created this repo: https://github.com/MOZGIII/async-std-issue-274
It captures the core problem. cargo +nightly test fails with the following:

...
error[E0599]: no method named `initializer` found for type `std::pin::Pin<&mut R>` in the current scope
  --> /home/mozgiii/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/async-std-0.99.7/src/io/read/read_to_end.rs:67:20
   |
67 |                 rd.initializer().initialize(&mut g.buf[g.len..]);
   |                    ^^^^^^^^^^^ method not found in `std::pin::Pin<&mut R>`
   |
   = help: items from traits can only be used if the trait is implemented and in scope
   = note: the following trait defines an item `initializer`, perhaps you need to implement it:
           candidate #1: `std::io::Read`

error: aborting due to previous error

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0599`.
error: could not compile `async-std`.

To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.

@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Contributor

yoshuawuyts commented Oct 5, 2019

Ah yes, this problem was fixed in 0.99.8! -- We published this a few days after 0.99.7 specifically to address this problem. This is happening because futures-preview updated to change the initializer argument, so we pinned it to alpha.18.

The next release will upgrade futures-preview version to alpha.19 so we can build on beta as well.

edit: for reference, here are the 0.99.8 patch notes! -- if you haven't upgraded already we recommend you do!

@MOZGIII
Copy link
Author

MOZGIII commented Oct 5, 2019

In the repo there's a fix for this exact issue:

super::initialize(&rd, &mut g.buf[g.len..]);

On the other hand, it's in master, but not at v0.99.7 tag. This is confusing, cause I believe cargo had to build the code before release is uploaded, and I wonder how that worked.

So, nvm.

@MOZGIII MOZGIII closed this as completed Oct 5, 2019
@MOZGIII
Copy link
Author

MOZGIII commented Oct 5, 2019

I'm looking forward to the release with support for futures-preview 0.3.0-alpha.19.

@yoshuawuyts
Copy link
Contributor

@MOZGIII Same! There should be one going out next week!

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

2 participants