bitvec VS semver

I was also under the false impression that bitwise encoding was slow. When I first implemented bitcode with bitvec I got performance 20x worse than bincode. After writing my own implementation I was able to get much better performance.

interesting; i'll have to compare this to my rust counterpart. your numbers indicate some clever implementations i'd love to read

Not to mention having a lackluster std which causes you to use nonstardard not so well documented crates and a 40K LoC library to do "bit-twiddling" (the lib, https://github.com/bitvecto-rs/bitvec the blog that says "twiddle bits" https://blog.adamchalmers.com/making-a-dns-client/ and for crying out loud the blogger also used the language the author mentioned and I quote "ergonomics AND speed AND correctness")

https://github.com/bitvecto-rs/bitvec/issues/135 is a very funny read about how to perform inttoptr with provenance retention

Technically #135 gives me license to yank affected crates, but since the only exploit is "Miri crashes exactly one test out of the suite" it's not really worth it to be a stickler. Call it a truce

My friend Nika wrote a macro that packs a sequence of 1, 0, … tokens into a correctly structured bit-buffer, adaptable over any register type or bit-ordering, at compile time. It's now basically this whole file

if you are interested in a user manual, you can use mdbook as well. for an example, my bitvec project uses mdbook (book.toml) and a github action (.github/workflows/gh-pages.yml) to compile the guide and host it as a github pages website. it's slightly more complicated, and i'd like docs.rs to follow hexdoc.pm's example of hosting both api docs and prose, but until then this is a pretty reasonable solution.

the first one

i would browse the standard library, tower, nom, or my own bitvec to see layout and trait/record separation. in particular, std::io and std::net may be of use: io::Read and io::Write are pervasive examples of implementing unixy file-descriptor-like behavior in the type system

Following the Semantic Versioning rules, you should raise the version number every time you need to publish your library. In your "package.json" file, you need to change the version number to reflect whether the changes are major, minor, or patch updates.

Semantic Versioning: An established convention for version numbers following the pattern MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH

Increases the major of the latest tag and prints it As per the Semver spec, it'll also clear the pre-release…

The reason for this is that software libraries and package managers, in general, but specifically here, rely on semantic versioning. Semantic versioning is really useful for distributing packages in a predictable way. What does this look like for our project?

For a more detailed and comprehensive guide on semantic versioning, visit https://semver.org

I believe neovim follows semantic versioning. https://semver.org/

Semver has been 2.0.0 for 10 years, look at the date of the assets. Multiple releases created today where none existed before. Not sure why someone is creating releases now, perhaps just some housekeeping/cleanup.

https://github.com/semver/semver/releases

All ELRS hardware will talk to all other ELRS hardware, including Radiomaster's ELRS transmitters and receivers. There are one or two exceptions from scummy companies that have been pilloried by the community, and you probably won't find them anymore. So long as the ELRS firmware running on both devices has the same major version number, you're good to go. ie. 3.3.1 will still talk to 3.0.1, but won't talk to 2.0.0. (The "major version" is the 1st number, the "minor version" is the 2nd number, and the "patch version" is the 3rd number. See Semantic Versioning for more info.)

If you're using semver, read the spec it's not overly long or hard to understand.

Semantic versioning actually has a clear rule about this: