Skip to content

Create an MSRV policy in this crate #1744

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

Open
alamb opened this issue Feb 24, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

Create an MSRV policy in this crate #1744

alamb opened this issue Feb 24, 2025 · 2 comments

Comments

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor

alamb commented Feb 24, 2025

TLDR woudl be:

  1. Define a MSRV policy (maybe copy the existing DataFusion one)
  2. Implement some sort of CI check (again can copy / reuse the datafusion one if we want)
          🤔  interestingly we don't seem to have an MSRV policy in this crate (at least not that I could find in https://github.com/apache/datafusion-sqlparser-rs/blob/main/README.md) 

We do have such a thing in DataFusion here: https://github.com/apache/datafusion?tab=readme-ov-file#rust-version-compatibility-policy

Maybe it is worth considering adding some documentation / policy in the sqlparser crate too 🤔

Originally posted by @alamb in #1736 (comment)

@mvzink
Copy link
Contributor

mvzink commented Feb 24, 2025

From looking into #1612, some test code uses associated type bounds (stabilized in 1.79). It could be rewritten if an earlier MSRV is desired (1.75 worked without it). That's moot if following a more progressive policy like DataFusion though.

@alamb
Copy link
Contributor Author

alamb commented Feb 25, 2025

From looking into #1612, some test code uses associated type bounds (stabilized in 1.79). It could be rewritten if an earlier MSRV is desired (1.75 worked without it). That's moot if following a more progressive policy like DataFusion though.

I don't have a strong preference -- I think keeping sqlparser simple / easy to embed sounds like a good idea but all the projects I care about use newer versions of rust 🤷

Hopefully others can chime in with their points of view

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