Nick Fitzgerald

> We should also bundle any other breaking changes we might want at the same time. Notably, this seems like an opportunity to clean up the size hint methods. (This...

> We should also bundle any other breaking changes we might want at the same time. Filed https://github.com/rust-fuzz/arbitrary/issues/217 for this discussion.

> Perfectly happy to update this PR to just bump the MSRV. We can't do it often, so if we are doing a breaking change anyways, we should just take...

> The more significant issue with a breaking change is that arbitrary is similar in principle to a foundational crate, meaning that the ecosystem will have to migrate quickly &...

> (My position is that neither are breaking in a way that requires a major release) I think it is fuzzy and I don't *necessarily* disagree, but I think that...

Given that both Wasmtime and node consider this an invalid Wasm, I suspect that the toolchain really is producing an invalid Wasm, rather than that both validators have the same...

Thanks for the report. Would you be interested in implementing a fix?

> Also, I'd like to make the same recommendation as I did for [zakarumych/allocator-api2#29](https://github.com/zakarumych/allocator-api2/issues/29). Unfortunately, I don't have cycles to constantly update the forked code from `std`, ripping out all...

Hey @bahbah94, this issue is pretty old and I don't think there's too much we need to do here actually. The verifier code has aged pretty well and been extended...

> Very nice! I like how this shaped up. Thanks! > I hope the `#[cfg]` wasn't too much to add, but it all looks relatively focused to be so it's...