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

update time to <1.15 #881

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 23, 2024
Merged

update time to <1.15 #881

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 23, 2024

Conversation

geekosaur
Copy link
Contributor

@geekosaur geekosaur commented Mar 17, 2024

Description

Update bounds of time to allow the new 1.14 release.

Checklist

  • I've read CONTRIBUTING.md

  • I've considered how to best test these changes (property, unit,
    manually, ...) and concluded: build with --constraint='time == 1.14' passed locally

  • I updated the CHANGES.md file (n/a)

@geekosaur
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually, since time is a bootlib CI is still using 1.12.2. Have to see how to test it locally.

@liskin
Copy link
Member

liskin commented Mar 21, 2024

I believe @slotThe did the testing a couple times in the past when I pinged him on IRC after the Packdeps CI failed.
Perhaps we should add a note about this to MAINTAINERS.md so we don't need to remember (and also to decrease the bus factor).

We could even make the Packdeps job point us to the relevant piece of documentation to minimise the brain function required to deal with this :-D

@slotThe
Copy link
Member

slotThe commented Mar 21, 2024

I saw the

build with --constraint='time == 1.14' passed locally

edit and figured that the local tests ran through.

We could even make the Packdeps job point us to the relevant piece of documentation to minimise the brain function required to deal with this :-D

We could also look into using https://github.com/nomeata/cabal-plan-bounds to generate version constraints automatically, or https://github.com/nomeata/cabal-force-upper-bound to force CI to use the upper bound of a package

@geekosaur
Copy link
Contributor Author

geekosaur commented Mar 21, 2024

edit and figured that the local tests ran through.

They did, and I updated to show it. Should I have deleted that comment afterward? (or edited it, I guess)

The main complication is that my setup is complicated, so building just xmonad-contrib is harder than building the whole stack and slipping in a constraint.

@slotThe slotThe merged commit 8ac8407 into xmonad:master Mar 23, 2024
18 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