-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
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
[stable] Fix #2691: Use same structure for managed and unmanaged path #2780
Conversation
✅ PR OK, no changes in deprecations or warnings Total deprecations: 11 Total warnings: 0 Build statistics: statistics (-before, +after)
executable size=5351336 bin/dub
-rough build time=60s
+rough build time=59s Full build output
|
Currently, we issue a warning asking people to migrate, but the migrated path is not actually recognized. It was suggested in the issue to ignore this warning for add-path. However, as add-path is a rather low-level use, I think it is better to impose the same condition for managed and unmanaged path, in order to be able to provide the same guarantees. For example, once we move to reading version from the path, we can provide the same speedups for add-path users. We can also make sure that add-path users don't have surprises when dealing with packages that expect a certain structure outside their directory, such as arsd and ae. Some tests were updated with the new path, however, as many will likely be rewritten with the new test framework, and a lot of tests are affected, not all of them were updated, providing coverage for the old and new code alike.
Okay, this is really bad. The fix here is completely backwards and doesn't make any sense. I recognize that the |
BTW, it was not the best move to push a change like this into the stable branch just before release, without a meaningful functional review. |
Currently, we issue a warning asking people to migrate, but the migrated path is not actually recognized. It was suggested in the issue to ignore this warning for add-path. However, as add-path is a rather low-level use, I think it is better to impose the same condition for managed and unmanaged path, in order to be able to provide the same guarantees. For example, once we move to reading version from the path, we can provide the same speedups for add-path users. We can also make sure that add-path users don't have surprises when dealing with packages that expect a certain structure outside their directory, such as arsd and ae.
Some tests were updated with the new path, however, as many will likely be rewritten with the new test framework, and a lot of tests are affected, not all of them were updated, providing coverage for the old and new code alike.