libp2p
feat: remove async_std support in TCP crate
ref https://github.com/libp2p/rust-libp2p/issues/5935
crate to update: swarm, mDNS, and the transports TCP, QUIC and DNS.
Can we not soft deprecate and just hard deprecate? CC @elenaf9 @dariusc93
@gitToki initially did that, but I asked for a soft deprecation. I think a soft deprecation makes sense here because we might still have users that use async_std. It would a) give them time to object before we do a hard removal and b) offer a transition period for them.
Any specific reason why you'd prefer a direct removal @jxs?
Can we not soft deprecate and just hard deprecate? CC @elenaf9 @dariusc93
Would there be any reason to suddenly do a hard deprecation vs soft? Imo, I think we should do a soft (though I am not against a hard one) to give users a time to switch or figure out plans on migration (or supporting the executor themselves for the respected protocols and utils).
Hi!
Any specific reason why you'd prefer a direct removal @jxs?
the reason is more work, double the PR's for something that has been declared as unmaintained, I feel redundant to have a version for users to remove their usage when they probably are already removing, added to the fact that I have seen soft deprecations lost in time. But if you two agree that we should do soft I cede :)
updated, should be good. @dariusc93 please let me know if everything look good to you
This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @gitToki? 🙏
![mergify[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/10562?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @gitToki? 🙏
dcutr and mplex fail but only the test have been updated so no version bump. It should be good now
This pull request has merge conflicts. Could you please resolve them @gitToki? 🙏