fix: bump paperclip-macros minor

[tiagolobocastro]

This is to address min/max being added and breaking back compat. paperclip-macros 0.6.4 and 0.6.5 will be yanked from crates. paperclip 0.9.0 and 0.9.1 will also be yanked from crates.

Resolves #542

[tiagolobocastro]

@Sufflope
I think we also yank paperclip 0.9.0 and 0.9.1 unfortunately, because those need the min/max change.
So once the paperclip-macros 0.6.{4,5} is yanked then paperclip 0.9.{0,1} become broken anyway?
Is this the right thing to do?
CC
@formlogic-kirk @snaggen @RaulTrombin @thomedw
for visibility since you've raised PRs recently, see #542 for the problem we're trying to address here, sorry for the mess-up :(

[tiagolobocastro]

I wonder if another way is to release 0.6.6 without min/max
Then pre 0.9.0 would get the correct code when updating, and existing 0.9.{0,1} would stay working (without updating). But if 0.9{0,1} update, then they'd go to 0.9.2 anyway which would have the correct paperclip-macros 0.7.0?

[Sufflope]

First let me say that I don't have previous experience with yanking, sorry (it's not a brag "I don't break things" 😅 on the contrary, it's just that I never got to maintain a public library 😢 ), so I don't have prior battle-tested knowledge.

So my not-so-educated opinion is: the problem with your second approach is in the (contrived, admittedly, but technically possible) case where someone would have pinned a =0.9.0 paperclip dependency but no explicit macros version, it would break on cargo update? So I think the safest option is your first one.

[tiagolobocastro]

Won't it break anyway with the first approach? Because we'd be yanking the paperclip-macros pointed to by the paperclip 0.9.{0,1}?

[Sufflope]

According to https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/commands/cargo-yank.html if I understand correctly, it should prevent new projects from adding paperclip 0.9.{0,1} as dependencies, but projects which have them already should continue compiling (with a warning telling them those deps are yanked). But at least users would be warned, and be able to update by switching to at least 0.9.2, instead of updating only the macro and getting a cryptic error that some fields are missing in a proc-macro. At least that's my understanding.

[Sufflope]

Note that anyway on my side I updated all my internal projects to 0.9 and I generate min/max attributes, and I am quite aware of the problem we're discussing, so even if there's a subsequent problem with the chosen strategy, it won't be a big issue to me, so feel free to choose the strategy you think will work the best!

[formlogic-kirk]

Looks good to me 👍

[tiagolobocastro]

Alright cool, I'll try and do this tomorrow or over the weekend, thanks both