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

Readme lists an incorrect set of default features. #1147

Closed
bfish510 opened this issue Jun 17, 2023 · 7 comments
Closed

Readme lists an incorrect set of default features. #1147

bfish510 opened this issue Jun 17, 2023 · 7 comments

Comments

@bfish510
Copy link

"old_time" is still a default feature in 0.4.26 despite the Readme saying otherwise. I believe this commit in mainline needs to be merged into the 0.4.x branch.

The semver of the time package has a related vulnerability

References:
0.4.x defaults
Defaults commit in mainline
Readme Commit
time-rs vulnerability for time 0.1.43

@djc
Copy link
Contributor

djc commented Jun 19, 2023

See #602 for discussion of the time 0.1 vulnerability and #1073 for discussion of getting rid of time 0.1 in chrono 0.4.

@bfish510
Copy link
Author

bfish510 commented Jun 19, 2023

To rephrase, my concern isn't that oldtime should or shouldn't be a default at the moment or a stance on getting rid of the time dependency but that the documentation for 0.4.x is inaccurate. I wasn't certain if the commit inferred that the intent was to modify the defaults along with the documentation, or that the readme for the branch is inaccurate and potentially has other issues.

Readme for 0.4.x
Defaults listed: alloc, std, clock, wasmbind

Default list for 0.4.x
Defaults listed: clock, std, oldtime, wasmbind

@djc
Copy link
Contributor

djc commented Jun 20, 2023

Right. Would you be able to submit a PR?

@bfish510
Copy link
Author

Gladly! Can you confirm it's just the documentation that needs to be updated and not a change to the defaults.

@djc
Copy link
Contributor

djc commented Jun 20, 2023

Yup!

@pitdicker
Copy link
Collaborator

@bfish510 You would be fixing my mistake, so thank you 😄.

But if we go with #1095 your documentation change will be very short-lived, and maybe not even make it to a release.

@pitdicker
Copy link
Collaborator

#1095 is merged.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants