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

WIP: Separate GenericPackageDescription from PackageDescription #5100

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

Ericson2314
Copy link
Collaborator

Now, neither contains the other, and their common fields are contained in 'CommonPackageDependencies'.

I'll probably first merge a change adding lenses per components, so some stuff can be made {Generic,}PackageDescription-polymorphic in advance. (The lenses would of course preserve the cond tree structure.)

Please include the following checklist in your PR:

  • Patches conform to the coding conventions.
  • Any changes that could be relevant to users have been recorded in the changelog.
  • The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
  • If the change is docs-only, [ci skip] is used to avoid triggering the build bots.

Please also shortly describe how you tested your change. Bonus points for added tests!

CC @kmicklas

@Ericson2314 Ericson2314 requested review from phadej and hvr February 2, 2018 23:32
@Ericson2314
Copy link
Collaborator Author

BTW, how do I get pems to cancel AppVeyor build?

@23Skidoo
Copy link
Member

23Skidoo commented Feb 3, 2018

AppVeyor has underdeveloped account structure that doesn't map to GitHub orgs, but I remember that @hvr managed to do it by logging in to AppVeyor using my user name somehow.

This could maybe use used to clean up PD checking and make it polymorphic on PD and GPD.
Now, neither contains the other, and their common fields are contained
in 'CommonPackageDependencies'.
@Ericson2314 Ericson2314 added this to the 3.0 milestone Aug 20, 2018
@23Skidoo 23Skidoo modified the milestones: 3.0, 3.0.1.0 Oct 16, 2019
@phadej phadej modified the milestones: 3.0.1.0, 3.2, 3.4 Nov 27, 2019
@mergify mergify bot added the merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days label Sep 1, 2022
@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever removed the merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days label Sep 3, 2022
@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever removed this from the Considered for 3.4 milestone Oct 19, 2022
@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

@Ericson2314 any thoughts on this PR of yours? Do you still plan to work on it? If not, do you think it'd be worthwhile for someone else to finish it? Or maybe it's not relevant at all anymore, and we should just close?

@Ericson2314
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@ulysses4ever it has been a long time, but yes I think it might be worthwhile for someone else to complete this. Unless my memory is faulty or something changes over the past few years, our data structures currently do a very bad job of making illegal states unrepresentable.

@Mikolaj Mikolaj added PR worth reviving consider reviving this PR or remove the label with a note why not and removed status: consider closing labels Jan 17, 2023
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jan 17, 2023

This is badly bit-rotted. Let me close, but mark as worth reviving (probably in a new PR, given the state of the patch?).

@Mikolaj Mikolaj closed this Jan 17, 2023
@Ericson2314
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Sounds good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
PR worth reviving consider reviving this PR or remove the label with a note why not
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants