cargo-release VS rust-orphan-rules

My problem with maintaining a changelog during development is it can serve as a source of merge conflicts. Instead, I follow Covnentional Commit style and manually write my changelog entries based on the commits. I have a tool [0] that can show me the relevant commits for a package in my repo and automates the entire release process, including doing sanity checks.

I also feel like releasing from CI is hard, especially if you have multiple packages in a repo [1], including

- You can't as easily introspect the process

- You can't as easily recover from failure

- Getting a lot of the nuance right, like handling releases concurrent to merging of PRs, is difficult

- When the workflow is an ever-present "release PR" that you merge when ready has issues with selecting which packages to release and at what version

I have been considering making a tool to generate changelogs from fragments. Been keeping notes at https://github.com/epage/epage.github.io/issues/23

[0]: https://github.com/crate-ci/cargo-release

[1]: https://github.com/MarcoIeni/release-plz/discussions/1019

You should combine step 1 and 2 with CI. Just tag a version in your git, push to remote and have CI auto build a release for you.

Use github actions or other setup for other backends.

Or go nuts with cargo-release.

https://github.com/crate-ci/cargo-release

https://github.com/cargo-bins/release-pr

tools like cargo-release

Just to check, are you aware of cargo-edit's cargo-set-version or cargo-release?

I released my first crate that provides a derive macro to easily obtain a name of a current variant in an enum as a string. I did it mostly to learn about procedural macros and the process of releasing a crate. I then found out there is strum which does this and much more. Nonetheless, I learned a lot and I found couple of nice tools like ```cargo-release and git-cliff.

I'll note there is an issue in the cargo-release repo where this kind of workflow is wanted. https://github.com/crate-ci/cargo-release/issues/119

cargo-release is on about the same level of features used

cargo-release automates the release process for your crate. For example, with clap, all I do is add entries to the CHANGELOG and run cargo release patch and cargo-release takes care of updating files, publishing to crates.io, tagging, and pushing.

Yes, developers from all three tools were sharing ideas with each other recently

Well, unless someone comes up with better, compatible rules, the orpan rules are gonna stick around.

Additionally there are other issues with rust currently. Compile time code (ala constexpr) is not up to par with C++20 (not really close). The const generic aren't as powerful as C++20 which added non primitive non type template parameters (though with you stuck with C++14, it actually is significantly better than what you have, again, if you're going to use C++, just use 20). Generics accepting closures is a bit more of an ordeal in rust, compared to C++. Also C++'s Duck Typed templates allow for some uncharacteristically strong typing compared to what is expressible in Rust generics currently. Now, duck typed templates do have major downsides, for example the entire feature of concepts is completely irrelevant in rust, but required for sane DTT type bounds, but they also have major upsides. Rust currently doesn't have "negative trait bounds", basically "This objected does not implement this trait, or std::enable_if> or the equivalent concepts implementation. Rust also doesn't have trait specializations, basically template specialization. Do note all features I've talked about to this point have nightly options, they just are at various stages of being stable/complete. Another issue is the orphan rule, though this is kind of a problem in C++ too in some respects, and that's unlikely to change drastically, since there are legitimate reasons for it's existence. For a lot of code none of these things are big deals, others they are, which is why you find inconsistent feed back on these issues.

Not that simple... hence why Orphan rule is still in-place. The struct wrapper was implemented in Rust as a temporary safe work-around. However, they are making progress on a solution: https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules/issues/1

That's still not an entirely complete explanation because there's more nuanced situations which aren't completely foreign but are foreign enough that if allowed, two crates could write the same impls. Some of the definitions are still unofficial as far as am I'm aware. For the best reference I’ve seen so far see this for more details.

In our crate the compiler doesn't know when calling MyTrait methods on MyStruct whether to use the implementation defined in crate 3 or crate 4! Rust has a set of orphan rules to prevent this situation from happening.

Sadly because of the rusts orphan rule you cannot implement a Trait on a Type where you do not own one or the other. So, apart from upstream contributions your only options are either a new Trait or a new Type.

If anyone is looking for additional background about orphan rules, check out https://github.com/Ixrec/rust-orphan-rules