-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 198
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
cipher v0.3.0 release #392
Comments
I have a draft with changes, which I would like to add to the v0.3 release. They include some renamings (e.g. |
The renamed traits sound great! |
@newpavlov I'm happy to punt on #444 until after How do you feel about #510? What else is remaining? A |
How about an end-of-February (i.e. ~March 1st) deadline for a v0.3.0 release? |
Yes, sounds good! I plan to return to |
Checking in on this: how are we doing? @newpavlov looks like you've merged quite a bit lately. I'm not sure what's remaining for a release. Is there anything I can help with? |
@newpavlov what specifically remains to be done here? |
I'm thinking if we can't get another |
Sorry for the delay! I plan to update the |
@newpavlov was #567 the PR you're talking about above, or per the notes in that PR are you planning a follow-up? |
@tarcieri |
Checking in once again on how we're doing here. At this point things are really starting to get problematic for me as this is holding up the upgrade to I can get immediately unblocked on things by cutting releases of the In hindsight I kind of wish we just released |
I have a potential proposal to unblock all of the above which I think would be relatively simple to execute given the current state of the repos. First, the crates in https://github.com/RustCrypto/universal-hashes/ are ready to release, so everything else aside I can go ahead and cut new releases of those. Beyond that: The I propose making a final v0.3.0 release of Aside from bumping @newpavlov WDYT about that? I think it would give you more time to work on additional changes to |
@tarcieri |
Sure, sounds good |
I've done an initial review of #589 and I think the direction is good. However,... The general direction seems like experimental changes that should probably take some time to bake. I think we already have enough of these sort of "risky" changes (namely CPU feature autodetection) that were ready to ship half a year ago at this point which I would like to see people actually use before we introduce another round of such potentially risky changes. I'd really, really like to ship the stuff that's ready at this point. It's a blocker for a lot of stuff I'm working on, and keeps coming up with people who are confused about which version of At this point I'd very strongly suggest we ship what I proposed above. If nothing else, at this point the unshipped work is very long winded and it will be hard enough to even write changelogs. I think it'd be good to give you @newpavlov more time to experiment with your changes, and also decouple such changes from things like CPU feature autodetection. I appreciate the work you're doing but the backlog of unshipped changes we have at this point is reaching a threshold I consider "time sensitive" and I really think we're long overdue for another round of releases. |
@newpavlov @tarcieri -- we're definitely very excited to use the CPU autodetection feature (we use aes-gcm-siv crate and downstream crates), so anything that could be done to get a new version shipped with this included in it would be much appreciated! There doesn't seem to be a downside to @tarcieri's proposed plan above to release the latest as v0.3.0 and then incorporate all these enhancements into a v0.4.0 as they're ready? Thanks for all of the incredible work on these crates, they have really good performance and the quality of both the crypto and the dev interfaces are very high! |
@tarcieri Side note: It's a bit annoying that our trait crates become somewhat coupled, which pushes for synchronized development and releases.
IIRC autodetection is compatible with the currently released trait crates, so it's should be possible to backport autodetection and release it in |
Sounds good!
I think it's pretty inevitable in that higher-level constructions need to combine primitives that work together. It's annoying, for example, that ECDSA depends on the If we could make |
This is one of the reasons why I think it's worth to merge some changes from the experimental PR instead of using the current state of the |
Indeed that much seems worth porting over if it can decouple |
I think it's worth attempting cutting new prereleases of After we've done that, perhaps we can circle back on any remaining last minute changes and then cut a final release. Edit: I did that with the following releases:
|
I looked at trying to do an update to the current I'm in favor of just cutting a |
Went ahead and cut a I upgraded block-ciphers/stream-ciphers to use this release successfully. I haven't cut any additional releases, so there is a small "abort" window here where I could back out these releases by yanking them. Otherwise, if this seems good, I'd like to move forward with updating everything else and then cutting releases of the dependent crates. Edit: I opened a PR to update RustCrypto/MACs. |
Getting dependabot alerts for |
I've gone ahead and cut releases of pretty much everything impacted. The only thing remaining are a few of the AEAD crates, and I'm doing some final cleanups on those before releasing each one.
|
This is a tracking issue for a final v0.3.0 release of the
cipher
crate, containing such changes as refactored block cipher traits (#352), unified error types (#373), and lots of cleanups of things that were missed with the "initial" release of thecipher
crate (v0.2, bumped from the v0.1 releases before we owned it).From my perspective it's ready to release, however there are at least a few things it might be worth considering getting in there before we do:
block
andstream
modules #344: makedev
modules private, re-exportblobby
from toplevelblock-modes
crate intocipher
@newpavlov any others?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: