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

Dual migration for HDF5 1.14.4 and 1.14.3 #6758

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 3, 2024

Conversation

hmaarrfk
Copy link
Contributor

See conda-forge/hdf5-feedstock#240

Is this enough to retrigger the builds for the feedstocks that have already been migrated?

Checklist

  • Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
  • Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
  • Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
  • Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
  • Ensured the license file is being packaged.

@hmaarrfk hmaarrfk requested a review from a team as a code owner November 29, 2024 13:21
@conda-forge-admin
Copy link
Contributor

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipe/meta.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

@hmaarrfk
Copy link
Contributor Author

cc: @h-vetinari i know that you mentioned that you thought that upstream should revert their introduced bug ASAP, but in the meantime, I think this will help us at conda-forge.

Copy link
Member

@h-vetinari h-vetinari left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cc: @h-vetinari i know that you mentioned that you thought that upstream should revert their introduced bug ASAP, but in the meantime, I think this will help us at conda-forge.

I do think that the only sane regression handling here is to revert the breakage before people start relying on the new behaviour (these are standard kernel regression rules, for example), and then introduce a more comprehensive fix on top. However, given that we have close to 0 control over how upstream deals with this, I'm OK with building for both versions.

I'd also be OK to simply drop 1.14.4, as it's essentially broken for a large part of the ecosystem.

@hmaarrfk
Copy link
Contributor Author

hmaarrfk commented Dec 3, 2024

I feel like some people have asked for both.

I agree with you that the breakage is large enough to warrant reverting. But I can’t control upstream. I could skip 1.14.4 for windows. What do you think?

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Member

As I said

I'm OK with building for both versions.

I don't think it's worth dropping windows for 1.14.4 (though that's a choice that individual feedstocks can make?) - but no strong feelings and happy to be convinced otherwise

@hmaarrfk hmaarrfk merged commit 990b224 into conda-forge:main Dec 3, 2024
3 checks passed
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants