-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 160
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
Use atomic.Value to maintain Go 1.13 compatibility #582
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage is
📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!. |
Updates to use atomic.Value in place of atomic.Bool such that older Go versions can continue to be supported. Signed-off-by: Daniel Mangum <[email protected]>
Adds comment to indicate that conn ID should always be a string. Signed-off-by: Daniel Mangum <[email protected]>
65cedc4
to
ebe2dc6
Compare
Honestly, I'd rather we don't and update the minimum version in Go 1.13 is from September 2019. It's now 4 years later. Go is very forwards compatible so the burden of upgrading a version once a while, especially once every 4 years, is basically 0. Go 1.19, which is what we'd need for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Go 1.13 is from September 2019. It's now 4 years later. Go is very forwards compatible so the burden of upgrading a version once a while, especially once every 4 years, is basically 0. Go 1.19, which is what we'd need for atomic.Bool, is already a year old and with the release of 1.21 already no longer supported by the Go team. I think it's fine to move our baseline to it. That would also enable the use of generics if we want it at some point.
@daenney I tend to agree, but I believe there is a desire for other pion
libraries to continue to support older Go versions, and other consumers are having to workaround this to maintain their older version support as well (e.g. plgd-dev/go-coap#481). Perhaps it makes more sense to maintain the compatibility for now, then start a discussion about what our minimum Go version requirement policy will be going forward?
Yeah. I think that's a problem though since our CI also doesn't test those things anymore. But yup, lets have that discussion after this. |
|
Description
Updates to use atomic.Value in place of atomic.Bool such that older Go
versions can continue to be supported.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Mangum [email protected]
Similar fix to pion/transport@701ff64