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

[v2.6.0] Bump from go 1.12 to go 1.17 in go.mod #478

Closed
fxamacker opened this issue Jan 28, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #489
Closed

[v2.6.0] Bump from go 1.12 to go 1.17 in go.mod #478

fxamacker opened this issue Jan 28, 2024 · 3 comments · Fixed by #489
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@fxamacker
Copy link
Owner

Go 1.12 is obsolete and Go 1.20 is a bit too new. It seems reasonable to specify go 1.17 in go.mod because that is the minimum version that can compile main branch without changes.

A recent PR bumped go.mod to go 1.20 while still allowing Go 1.17 to work. The go.mod can create the impression we don't support Go 1.17-1.19 if a user takes a quick look without reading comments, etc.

It seems reasonable to specify go 1.17 in go.mod:

  • it can avoid confusion about what minimum version we actually support
  • it passed tests with when compiled with Go 1.17 to 1.21
  • it will still use Go 1.18-1.20 features when compiled with Go 1.20+
  • it is the first version to support the //go:build syntax and avoiding the old syntax is nice

Please comment here if you have thoughts or concerns about bumping from Go 1.12 to 1.17.

@fxamacker fxamacker added this to the v2.6.0 milestone Jan 28, 2024
@fxamacker fxamacker self-assigned this Jan 28, 2024
@x448
Copy link
Contributor

x448 commented Feb 5, 2024

@fxamacker most users won't read this issue until after v2.6.0 is released and only if it affects them. You can release v2.6.1 as a fix to support earlier Go version if users open issue to request Go 1.16 or older.

@fxamacker
Copy link
Owner Author

Closed by #489

@nickchomey
Copy link

1.17 has been out of support for over 2 years now. https://endoflife.date/go

I'm curious why something newer (at this point, 1.23) was not used? Would they require a rewrite?

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants