Bump to base < 4.21 (to support GHC 9.10) #316
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
GHC 9.10 is now available in |
|
Revision 1 made: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/process-1.6.20.0/revisions/ |
|
@tomjaguarpaw, in the case of strict version bounds bumps it's not uncommon for GHC to carry patches locally performing the bounds bumps. This has historically been necessary since some core library authors are reluctant to merge bounds bumps until the GHC release has been made final, placing us in a bit of a chicken-egg situation. |
|
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I don't know what we should do about testing this, since
haskell-actionsdoesn't have 9.10 yet. Should we wait for it to do so?(Relatedly, I'm surprised that, since
processis a boot library, that GHC could even release without this bump having already been performed. Maybe GHC just doesn't look at cabal version bounds at all.)