Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Upgrade go version to 1.21 in go.mod #1425

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

arukiidou
Copy link
Contributor

@arukiidou arukiidou commented Mar 27, 2024

I upgraded go version to 1.21 in go.mod.
copy of #1181

@arukiidou arukiidou changed the title Feature/upgrade go mod Upgrade go version to 1.21 in go.mod Apr 2, 2024
@arukiidou arukiidou marked this pull request as ready for review April 2, 2024 22:33
@arukiidou
Copy link
Contributor Author

arukiidou commented Apr 2, 2024

@JacobOaks
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @arukiidou - my understanding is that the go line in a library's go.mod file now sets a requirement for all consumers of the library, so I actually think we may want to be more conservative when it comes to updating it so as to not require all consumers to upgrade, unless there's a very good reason. But I'm open to other thoughts!

@arukiidou
Copy link
Contributor Author

arukiidou commented Apr 3, 2024

Yes, it will need to upgrade most of go.mods to pass the test.

Why upgrades?

  • zapslog is approaching move to core. but, zapslog requires go 1.21.
  • According to the readme, zap may only support go 1.21 or later.

You make a good point , could postpone this for several months.

@JacobOaks
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @arukiidou -

  • For zaplog, is not upgrading zap blocking usage (and eventual merging) of zapslog? The advantage of upgrading here is that we can get rid of some of the build tags, but my understanding is that it can still be used as long as the consumer of zap is using >= 1.21.
  • It's true that Zap only officially supports the latest two versions, but upgrading go.mod makes it a hard requirement, rather than a suggestion.

If it's ok with you, I think we should probably wait on this.

@arukiidou
Copy link
Contributor Author

arukiidou commented Apr 16, 2024

Ok, I understood that this is still early.

Please let me know when the time comes.

@arukiidou
Copy link
Contributor Author

@JacobOaks
One more version progressed since then. Can I take this up again?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants