-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 696
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
Remove debug-conflict-sets flag from solver package #9432
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The ticket was opened in May, plenty of time for people to chime in. Adieu debug-conflict-sets
.
e47a668
to
4ff0e97
Compare
Thanks! |
The CI failure seems to be a transient network problem. @grayjay any particular reason to use no_rebase? It produces complex git histories and is less clear/safe regarding what CI tests just before merging. |
@Mikolaj Thanks for looking into the CI failure. I'll click rerun. I chose "merge+no rebase" because it seemed like the option that would avoid modifying the PR. I think that keeping the original snapshot of the code would be important if the PR involved extensive manual testing, such as running the Hackage benchmarks, but that doesn't apply to this PR. I'll change it to "merge me". I didn't realize that "merge+no rebase" performed fewer checks. Do you know if there is documentation on the process, or does Cabal customize it? |
Hah, rebase vs merge and which keep code integrity better is a holy war topic. :) With relatively low traffic in the cabal repo and few long-running branches, it's decent in both cases, I hope. I think "merge+no rebase" performs weaker checks in that it runs CI on the original unmerged branch, then merges the PR and only then re-validates the merged commits --- after the PR has landed. I think. Last time I checked. This has its advantages, because the merge queue gets shorter. Would be great to observe in the wild again or look up in some docs. We have not customized it and we are in the process of documenting the recommended labels and their uses: #9427. Any feedback is very welcome. I'm taking the liberty of rebasing to restart the CI again, because it seems to have network problems that we can't easily work around. |
@mergify rebase |
✅ Branch has been successfully rebased |
4ff0e97
to
cf089b6
Compare
Fixes haskell#8937. The debug-conflict-sets build flag probably hasn't been used for a long time, and it isn't currently tested. This commit removes the flag, converts the ConflictSet type back to a newtype, and removes an unnecessary instance.
cf089b6
to
9c15880
Compare
Fixes #8937.
The debug-conflict-sets build flag probably hasn't been used for a long time, and it isn't currently tested. This commit removes the flag, converts the ConflictSet type back to a newtype, and removes an unnecessary instance.
Template Β: This PR does not modify
cabal
behaviour (documentation, tests, refactoring, etc.)Include the following checklist in your PR: