Stabilize upgrade #291
Merged
Stabilize upgrade #291
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
If cloning is desirable, we could use dyn-clone. |
|
To be fair, I don't think that |
jbr
requested changes
Nov 27, 2020
|
to check if this branch integrates with the upgrades branch of async-h1, rebuild here: https://github.com/http-rs/async-h1/pull/159/checks?check_run_id=1465867869 — the current failure represents the missing changes in response.rs |
stabilize upgrade in response
|
Annnnnnd https://github.com/http-rs/async-h1/pull/159/checks?check_run_id=1500647266 is passing! -- I think that means we can merge this! Thanks for the review everyone, and thanks @pepoviola for the patch fix! Merging! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Proposes to stabilize the
upgradesubmodule. I've included the changes suggested in #287 (comment), simplifying the internals. One downside of this, however, is that we remove theClonederive. I'm not sure if this leads to a loss of functionality though, since derives are conditional, and we're now always boxing.@jbr giving this a test run with your websockets tide patch would be much appreciated. That's what this API was designed for, and it allows us to gage whether this actually works as expected. Thanks!