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

Bump stack configs + CI to 9.6.5 and 9.8.2 #4316

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

jhrcek
Copy link
Collaborator

@jhrcek jhrcek commented Jun 12, 2024

Partly motivated as a workaround for #4314 (comment) but also as part of general migration towards more recent ghc versions.

Also using more restrictive allow-newer-deps to prevent issues like in the fourmolu upgrade PR, where allow-newer caused fourmolu version bounds from cabal file to be ignored.

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ library
, deepseq
, dependent-map
, dependent-sum
, Diff ^>=0.4.0
, Diff ^>=0.5
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Seems like this version has nice perf improvements: https://github.com/seereason/Diff/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

Also needed to bump to avoid adding Diff-0.4 to extra deps because it's not in recent stack resolvers.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Small feedback: This change is making trouble in distributing.
There was as I see it no reason to raise the lower bound here. (Raising the upper bound is good.) Especially since Diff 0.4.0 is the current Diff version in stackage-lts this lower bound bump seems a bit hasty.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry for that. I didn't think about it too deeply. Do you want me to try to widen the range again?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure. Would probably be a good idea, but I have a workaround downstream so I don’t care too much.

@jhrcek jhrcek marked this pull request as ready for review June 12, 2024 15:44
Copy link
Collaborator

@fendor fendor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thanks :)

@jhrcek jhrcek merged commit c11f32b into master Jun 12, 2024
34 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