Skip to content

Conversation

@andrei-21
Copy link
Contributor

The newer time version requires Rust 1.88

@ldk-reviews-bot
Copy link

ldk-reviews-bot commented Jan 27, 2026

I've assigned @tankyleo as a reviewer!
I'll wait for their review and will help manage the review process.
Once they submit their review, I'll check if a second reviewer would be helpful.

rust/Cargo.lock Outdated
[[package]]
name = "time"
version = "0.3.44"
version = "0.3.36"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The MSRV bump happened in 0.3.46 so let's set this to 0.3.45

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

@tankyleo
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the PR !

Do I understand correctly, on the current main branch, cargo +1.85.0 build succeeds on your local machine, but fails in your docker setup ?

You need to build with --locked in CI.

Because you want CI to enforce that builds pass for the exact Cargo.lock version checked in? Yes I agree. But the reason cargo build --locked fails on the current main branch is not due to the time MSRV bump, and I want to make sure we agree here.

The newer `time` version requires Rust 1.88
@andrei-21 andrei-21 force-pushed the fix/time-dependency branch from 7891c27 to 7451b0d Compare January 28, 2026 09:50
@andrei-21
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do I understand correctly, on the current main branch, cargo +1.85.0 build succeeds on your local machine, but fails in your docker setup ?

With this change it works locally and in docker.

Because you want CI to enforce that builds pass for the exact Cargo.lock version checked in? Yes I agree. But the reason cargo build --locked fails on the current main branch is not due to the time MSRV bump, and I want to make sure we agree here.

Correct.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants