Relax bounds in PartialEq implementations

[sgued]

Fix #636

Does two things:

• Add missing ?Sized bounds
• Make PartialEq's RHS be generic over the storage in deque and history_buf.

[sgued]

Blocked by #638

[zeenix]

Blocked by #638

Just queued that for merging. In the future, just include such trivial fixes to the same PR (just in separate commit). While smaller/atomic PRs are ideal, it's more important to keep commits atomic (so you can revert individual changes later, if needed and it's easier to review, among other benefits).

[zeenix]

LGTM in general. Thanks for doing this! 👍

[sgued]

Blocked by #638

Just queued that for merging. In the future, just include such trivial fixes to the same PR (just in separate commit). While smaller/atomic PRs are ideal, it's more important to keep commits atomic (so you can revert individual changes later, if needed and it's easier to review, among other benefits).

I think it can be useful to separate uncontroversial changes, like clippy lints, from PRs such as this one so that the clippy lints can be merged immediately and not be blocked by review comment on this PR, which could be an annoyance for someone opening another PR while this one is being reviewed.

[zeenix]

I think it can be useful to separate uncontroversial changes, like clippy lints, from PRs such as this one so that the clippy lints can be merged immediately and not be blocked by review comment on this PR, which could be an annoyance for someone opening another PR while this one is being reviewed.

Oh, I agree completely. I just didn't think of this as a controversial PR as I don't see why anyone would disagree with this. :)