Conversation
|
There once was #9330 but it's fine to proceed here… |
Oh, apologies @ulysses4ever, I didn't notice your PR. I now tagged it with I am frankly quite surprised this PR here went through CI like a charm. The good work that has been done on CI is paying off here. We'll have to wait for the upstream issues though before merging... |
|
No problem at all! Yeah, upstream is a little annoying, and in some cases it can take quite some time, which is why I think for the latest GHC it's fine to have a couple of |
|
Let's ask some big bosses for their opinion on |
|
And |
|
IMHO, temporary |
|
@Mikolaj wrote:
Good suggestion, however, I don't want to fiddle with the CI to make this work. Maybe the time is better invested in contributing to the upstream issues so they get closed. |
|
So, is the plan to add |
|
I'll add a new cabal.project.blah in #9330 This one needs a merge label. Please, feel free to add it. I'll rebase 9330 when this one is merged. |
Ah, no I meant to say that I should work on the upstream issues so that we do not need a workaround here. |
Ok, did that now, for |
|
I am out of luck now with CI. Maybe I just started it in an auspicious moment last time. This time I am getting strange errors, which I think I have seen before but don't remember when and why: |
|
It's a famous heisenbuh, see #8883 and #8356. Clearing the cache using https://github.com/haskell/cabal/actions/caches may help. While I'm here. I'd prefer a separate project file for these allow-newer's (e.g. cabal.project.ghc98), I think, so that we don't pollute the history of the main one. |
|
I see somebody has cleared the caches already. Let me restart the builds... |
|
@andreasabel: and it worked this time! |
|
@ulysses4ever wrote:
Will these be picked up by CI? Adding and deleting again will at least not pollute the blame.
|
|
Our |
|
Oh, but I have no idea which |
But atm |
|
I see Edit: on branch master. |
That was my hack, which I'm not proud about. I'd like to localize these in a separate file, so that they're easier to track. And all other ones can |
|
I think CI shouldn't do anything that surprising. In particular, if CI passes here for GHC 9.8, and I clone |
|
This is all made even more convoluted by |
Agreed. Question is: what's the most ergonomic way to recover this property. |
This also works and picks up ulysses4ever/rere#25: source-repository-package
type: git
location: https://github.com/phadej/rere
tag: dd78e2945a67f9cd32d16560c49780ae6227eed9 |
|
Since @phadej now released P.S.: I took the opportunity to remove some cruft from |
|
Supposedly needs another cache reset... |
|
Yes, it seems so. Restarting... |
|
Another cache wipe is needed... |
|
@mergify rebase |
✅ Branch has been successfully rebased |
|
It didn't help this time, but let me try wiping out the cache again... Edit: and now it did work. :) |
|
@Mergifyio backport 3.10 |
✅ Backports have been createdDetails
|
Bump to latest dependencies for GHC 9.8.1, closes #9368.
Update: I added a
allow-newerforrereintocabal.projectnow.TODO:Temporarily addedcabal.project.localfor outdated deps, needs to be removed once deps have caught up to GHC 9.8.Upstream issues: