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 GH validate workflow to 9.2.8, 9.4.7, 9.6.3 #9392

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 3, 2023

Conversation

juhp
Copy link
Collaborator

@juhp juhp commented Nov 3, 2023

No description provided.

@juhp juhp changed the title github validate workflow: update to latest minor ghc versions update GH validate workflows to 9.2.8, 9.4.7, 9.6.3 Nov 3, 2023
@juhp juhp changed the title update GH validate workflows to 9.2.8, 9.4.7, 9.6.3 update GH validate workflow to 9.2.8, 9.4.7, 9.6.3 Nov 3, 2023
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Nov 3, 2023

Wow. Did the tests fail, because the output changed or did something new break now?

@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Nov 3, 2023

Wow. Did the tests fail, because the output changed or did something new break now?

ah no, I tried to re-enable Windows for 9.6, but it still appears to fail... so I undid that now

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

Already part of #9330, but if it helps an immediate issue, I'm fine with rebasing.

@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Nov 3, 2023

@ulysses4ever ah okay - sorry I wasn't aware

Maybe good to get this first step in anyway?
Decoupling 9.8 might be easier... but anyway :-)

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

@juhp absolutely, please, go ahead. There's enough trouble with that guy, so factoring out independent pieces is always helpful.

@juhp juhp marked this pull request as ready for review November 3, 2023 17:26
@juhp juhp merged commit 4e20249 into haskell:master Nov 3, 2023
42 checks passed
@juhp juhp deleted the gh-wf-ghcvers branch November 3, 2023 17:27
@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Nov 3, 2023

Thanks!

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Nov 4, 2023

@juhp: BTW, a more delicate way of merging outright is via the merge_me and merge_delay_passed labels. Less risk of comitting something CI has not run and of creating git art via non-fast-foward merge commits. :)

@juhp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

juhp commented Nov 4, 2023

Thanks @Mikolaj - I was wondering: should have checked - will do that next time

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Nov 4, 2023

Thank you. :)

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.

5 participants