Lucio Franco
Lucio Franco
@olix0r I wonder if we should provide a subset of `prost-build` that contains no vendoring? `prost-build-cc` and `prost-build-lite` or something like that that gives you clear control. Though I wonder...
@Jake-Shadle changed some settings should _work_ now when you push.
@Jake-Shadle those patch releases are on the `v0.10` branch, master contains some breaking changes.
@ricnewton still looking to merge this, I just have not had enough time to full review this yet.
hi! I wrote a proposal that removes cmake and can also support this work. Let me know what you think in there! Thanks for putting this together jake
Hmmm I'm not sure if I want to sacrifice ergonomics for this case. I wonder how often this actually comes up in practice where the user can't just change it.
@thanethomson that is a very valid point. I wonder if we should add something similar to `type_attributes` that will let you rename a field so you can say make it...
I don't think the use of the derive macros is limited to just `prost-build` and I don't expect any breaking changes really. That said, I think not many people go...
At this point unless you can capture the`try_into` into the `Message` impl of your type it won't be possible. That said, I do think separating decoding & validation is an...
I think adding that config item makes a lot of sense and adds flexibility. I know its not the most ergonomic for your use case but I could see it...