cargo-release VS Rustup

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

It seems like that will change in the (near) future according to the following github issue[0]. A quote from one of the developers, rami3l, in that thread[1]:

> My current plan is indeed to remove implicit installations entirely.

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/3635

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/3635#issuecomment...

I got it to finally work by following this

If you are someone actively using such relative-path toolchains, please contact us (Discord / Github issues).

We had a snap package; we removed it in mid 2022

I don't know. The PR references prior discussion without a link, so it may have been private.

As long as he doesn't put hidden folders in your root like rust. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/341

I think you're being upvoted by folks who don't know better, which is a shame because you're making things up :/. The telemetry feature in rustup kept everything local and never "pinged home". And you had to enable it with a command `rustup telemetry enable`. And it just logged JSON files at the path you mentioned. By 2019, the feature was disabled (see: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/341 ) because no one worked on it and it just gathered bugs.

FWIW, there is a proposal to add telemetry to LLVM [0] and Rust used to have telemetry [1], both off by default. Some things in the node.js world have telemetry enabled by default, like Next.js [3].

Some people are posting here as if this as already decided -- AFIACT, that's not the case. It's not even a formal proposal yet, and the stated intent was to start a conversation around something concrete. (For context, this is standard for how I've seen the Go project approaches large topics, including for example I think there were something like ~8 very detailed generics design drafts from the core Go team over ~10 years).

It sounds like the Go team is going to take some time to look into some of the alternative approaches suggested in the feedback collected so far.

In any event, this is obviously a topic people are very passionate about, especially opt-in vs. opt-out, but I guess I would suggest not giving up hope quite yet.

[0] https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-lldb-telemetry-metrics/6458...

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rustup/issues/341

[2] https://nextjs.org/telemetry

Rust (Specifically Rust Up) seems to have planned to include telemetry but they paused and cancelled the decision, possibly after implementing it initially.