Rob Ede
Rob Ede
If ed25519 and ed25519ph verifications algorithms were compatible, I wouldn't have an issue. What do you think is the best course of action for the use case listed of more-memory-efficient...
Ahh. If this is just a naming issue then sure that seems very appropriate.
There's 2 (arguably 3) PRs open with this "fixed". The real problem is that a 0.x dependency is in the public API of a 1.x crate. This is becoming more...
> reexport rand ? it's not that simple, unfortunately
As I said in an earlier comment, if you have a crate in the public API and bump it to a semver incompatible version, that is _always_ a breaking change....
You're free to fork projects, make changes, and publish them on crates.io (license permitting). This repo has recent activity so maybe talk about which solution is preferable rather than complain...
> Well I opened a PR And... closed it?... apparently. That's much less helpful to maintainers and other reviewers than leaving it open. FWIW, I like your closed PR's approach...
@isislovecruft Do you have any views on this particular issue? / Are you looking for additional maintainers?
A needed change but would be technically breaking unless a version range like `>=0.7,
> DO you think the CI error, might be related No idea, usually I ignore linker errors if they're not happening on all versions. It'll go away eventually.