Update main post-0.1 release

[tnull]

Here, we cherry-pick the commits updating README and version numbers from the 0.1 branch, as it's otherwise a bit confusing to not have them up-to-date (especially since main acts effectively as the landing page of the repository).

[TheBlueMatt]

Can we make the version numbers, like, 0.0.1 or something so we don't have to change them until we branch? Alternatively, they should be 0.2-git or so.

[tnull]

so we don't have to change them until we branch

Not quite sure I'm following - why would we need to change them? Ah, do you mean so that we don't need to keep them in sync with the patch releases?

[TheBlueMatt]

Just so we don't have to update the version numbers on main after every release.

[tnull]

Just so we don't have to update the version numbers on main after every release.

Well, we could also treat PRs updating the README and bumping version numbers just as any other PRs: first land them on main, then backport them to the specific branch?

Can we make the version numbers, like, 0.0.1 or something so we don't have to change them until we branch? Alternatively, they should be 0.2-git or so.

I kinda dislike the former as a 0.0.1 version is also confusing to anyone looking into the Cargo.tomls. I tried the latter, but it simply doesn't work:

error: failed to parse manifest at `/Users/erohrer/workspace/rust-lightning/lightning/Cargo.toml`

Caused by:
  unexpected character '-' after minor version number for key `package.version`

[TheBlueMatt]

Well, we could also treat PRs updating the README and bumping version numbers just as any other PRs: first land them on main, then backport them to the specific branch?

Not really - we might want to do an 0.1.2 and 0.2.1 at the same time and any such commits will just conflict and be more work than they're worth...

I kinda dislike the former as a 0.0.1 version is also confusing to anyone looking into the Cargo.tomls. I tried the latter, but it simply doesn't work:

Weird, the docs say explicitly you can do this... https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-version-field Can we do 0.2git without the -?

[tnull]

Weird, the docs say explicitly you can do this... https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#the-version-field

Note that it says 1.0.0-alpha.4, i.e., X.Y.Z-something.A.

Can we do 0.2git without the -?

Nope. 0.1.0-git would work, which is however also not great as it doesn't communicate the 0.1.* wildcard really. How about 0.1.0+git, as git seems more like metadata rather than an actual version here (and gets ignored by cargo)?

[tnull]

How about 0.1.0+git, as git seems more like metadata rather than an actual version here (and gets ignored by cargo)?

Now included a fixup going this way.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.92%. Comparing base (3fbf97d) to head (ab81966).
Report is 11 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3546      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.42%   88.92%   +0.49%     
==========================================
  Files         149      149              
  Lines      113302   116639    +3337     
  Branches   113302   116639    +3337     
==========================================
+ Hits       100191   103725    +3534     
+ Misses      10636    10522     -114     
+ Partials     2475     2392      -83     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[TheBlueMatt]

How about 0.1.0+git, as git seems more like metadata rather than an actual version here (and gets ignored by cargo)?

I don't think git is "metadata" here - git HEAD is really "0.2 before alpha", rather than "0.1 plus git". Really its neither and its "some code that might end up in 0.2, or maybe some stuff that's in 0.2 and is targeting 0.3" but cargo won't let us call the version just "git" :/.

[tnull]

I don't think git is "metadata" here - git HEAD is really "0.2 before alpha", rather than "0.1 plus git". Really its neither and its "some code that might end up in 0.2, or maybe some stuff that's in 0.2 and is targeting 0.3" but cargo won't let us call the version just "git" :/.

Hmm, I kind of see your point. What's your suggestion then? IMO, any variant of 0.1.0 would be better than leaving it 0.0.124 forever or 0.0.1?

We could also bump the MSRV to 1.75 for the whole workspace, as, IIUC, it would allow us to drop the version field entirely 😜 (I'm starting to look forward to the next Debian release again)

[TheBlueMatt]

Hmm, I kind of see your point. What's your suggestion then? IMO, any variant of 0.1.0 would be better than leaving it 0.0.124 forever or 0.0.1?

I guess if we have to have a version my preference would be 0.2+git or 0.2-prealpha1

We could also bump the MSRV to 1.75 for the whole workspace, as, IIUC, it would allow us to drop the version field entirely 😜 (I'm starting to look forward to the next Debian release again)

Ha, that would be nice.

[tnull]

I guess if we have to have a version my preference would be 0.2+git or 0.2-prealpha1

Alright, now updated all to use the next, not the current version with the +git metadata, e.g. 0.2.0+git.

[TheBlueMatt]

LGTM, feel free to squash.

[tnull]

LGTM, feel free to squash.

Squashed fixups without further changes.

[tnull]

Rebased on current main, as I had to rebase #3509 on top of this.

[TheBlueMatt]

Sure.