Should `@unstable` features be included in stable releases? · general

Stream: general

Topic: Should `@unstable` features be included in stable releases?

Lann Martin (Jan 28 2025 at 14:04):

Here is an issue for wasm-pkg-tools/wkg about unstable being omitted in published packages: https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-pkg-tools/issues/143

Incorrect wit for `wasi:cli@0.2.3` and `wasi:sockets@0.2.3` · Issue #143 · bytecodealliance/wasm-pkg-tools

I originally created this as an issue in wasmtime (cc @alexcrichton): bytecodealliance/wasmtime#10119 tl;dr the wit used to generate wasmtime_wasi::bindings and the ones in my repository were misma...

Lann Martin (Jan 28 2025 at 14:05):

As commented there, I'm wondering what the desired behavior is here; should "unstable" features be part of a release?

Lann Martin (Jan 28 2025 at 14:18):

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-pkg-tools/discussions/144

Should `@unstable` feautres be included in stable releases? · bytecodealliance wasm-pkg-tools · Discussion #144

Context: #143 I think both options here are defensible: The @unstable feature is in the source and requires opt-in, so include it in the release The @unstable feature is unstable, so omit it from t...

Alex Crichton (Jan 28 2025 at 20:46):

(commented on the thread there)

Pat Hickey (Jan 28 2025 at 21:27):

thanks, i was wondering how i managed to not need a LinkOptions in one situation from changing the wit path, and the answer was that wkg get wasi:... removed the unstable.

Pat Hickey (Jan 28 2025 at 21:27):

i agree with alex

Last updated: Feb 28 2025 at 02:27 UTC