Closed sanmai-NL closed 6 years ago
Should this be a cargo-outdated bug?
I don't think so. Features should be made explicit in Cargo.toml
, don't you think?
The feature was misnamed unfortunately: the name isn't valid given the existence of a dependency with the same name (see CI logs). The best fix would be to rename the feature.
I agree with the use of an explicit feature, but this will be a break change.
I will merge in the next version.
Without it,
cargo-outdated
shows the feature is outdated i.e. doesn’t exist. With it, I hope not. It surely doesn’t hurt to make the feature explicit.