Stream: git-wasmtime

Topic: wasmtime / issue #3471 Cranelift: state which crates are ...

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Oct 25 2021 at 21:31):

cfallin opened issue #3471:

The discussion around #3420 has made clear that we should, at a minimum, specify which crates we consider to be "internal" and which we consider to be "public" for the purposes of semver compatibility. This issue, to be clear, does not require (for now) any sort of process or stability policy beyond a list of crates; just that we should say "if you use crates X, Y, and Z, then we will follow semver".

I propose that we declare at least the following as such:

Any others I've missed?

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 26 2022 at 19:45):

akirilov-arm labeled issue #3471:

The discussion around #3420 has made clear that we should, at a minimum, specify which crates we consider to be "internal" and which we consider to be "public" for the purposes of semver compatibility. This issue, to be clear, does not require (for now) any sort of process or stability policy beyond a list of crates; just that we should say "if you use crates X, Y, and Z, then we will follow semver".

I propose that we declare at least the following as such:

Any others I've missed?

view this post on Zulip Wasmtime GitHub notifications bot (Jan 26 2022 at 19:45):

akirilov-arm labeled issue #3471:

The discussion around #3420 has made clear that we should, at a minimum, specify which crates we consider to be "internal" and which we consider to be "public" for the purposes of semver compatibility. This issue, to be clear, does not require (for now) any sort of process or stability policy beyond a list of crates; just that we should say "if you use crates X, Y, and Z, then we will follow semver".

I propose that we declare at least the following as such:

Any others I've missed?

Last updated: Dec 06 2025 at 06:05 UTC