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

CI: GHC 9.2.1 -> 9.2.2 #8253

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 27, 2022
Merged

CI: GHC 9.2.1 -> 9.2.2 #8253

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 27, 2022

Conversation

ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator


Please include the following checklist in your PR:

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

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jun 25, 2022

Hah, long overdue. Why not 9.2.3?

@andreabedini
Copy link
Collaborator

I need to double check but I think one could omit the minor version entirely. “9.2” would mean the latest “9.2.x”.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks for suggestions. I can switch to 9.2.3 or 9.2 What concerns me is that there’s a new failure on 9.2.2 with haddock in a backpack test. This combination sounds scary to me! (I found out about it accidentally when looking what could be done with #8032.)

This failure also shows that not pinning the minor release can bring surprises, and I’d rather pin it as before.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Link to the failed job: https://github.com/haskell/cabal/runs/7050959899?check_suite_focus=true

Meanwhile, trying 9.2.3.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Same failure for 9.2.3. Also reproduces locally.

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Jun 25, 2022

yeah unfortunately it is not uncommon that ghc minor versions breaks things.
Use lastest version will catch earlier those errors but they will interfere cabal development so I agree in pinning them and check newer versions on purpose, like this pr does

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ulysses4ever commented Jun 25, 2022

Oh, so the failure is due to "expect fail" on those tests (introduced in #8022) was very (I'd say: too) specific about version of GHC it covers. I propose changing

- ghc <- isGhcVersion "== 9.0.2 || == 9.2.1"
+ ghc <- isGhcVersion "== 9.0.2 || == 9.2.*"

The actual ticket investigating the problem is #7987.

Copy link
Member

@Mikolaj Mikolaj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

100/100

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever added merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge and removed attention: needs-review labels Jun 27, 2022
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 37de451 into master Jun 27, 2022
@robx robx deleted the ci-ghc922 branch June 27, 2022 12:44
@robx
Copy link
Collaborator

robx commented Jun 27, 2022

(oops reflexively hit the "delete branch" button, guess it doesn't hurt)

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ulysses4ever commented Jun 27, 2022

It's all good @robx. I should have done it myself.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jun 27, 2022

Don't worry, I delete random things on impulse all the time.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Jul 8, 2022

@Mergifyio backport 3.8

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Jul 8, 2022

backport 3.8

✅ Backports have been created

Mikolaj added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 8, 2022
@mergify mergify bot added the merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days label Oct 11, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
continuous-integration merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants