3 ms·
The only additional detail I could find from the author’s Twitter thread on the topic: > In this case it looks like something in a Cargo.toml in Firefox wasn't
by faitswulff 5y ago
The only additional detail I could find from the author’s Twitter thread on the topic:
> In this case it looks like something in a Cargo.toml in Firefox wasn't to the taste of the newer version of Cargo. Presumably it was valid back then but not any more.
https://twitter.com/thatcks/status/1379506374049140742 https://twitter.com/thatcks/status/1379506374049140742
- lamontcg 5y ago> wasn't to the taste of i am immediately annoyed by the author using this rhetorical flourish
- twic 5y agoSounds like if this really is a failure of backwards compatibility, it is a failure of such for Cargo, not Rust. Does Cargo have the same backward compatibility goals as Rust itself?
- steveklabnik 5y agoIt generally does, yes. Without more details, it is really hard to say what actually happened. I'm not aware of any breaking changes to the Cargo.toml format, though maybe I missed something. They may have also meant "a new dependency version broke", not literally that Cargo couldn't understand Cargo.toml. Need more details.