8000 Drop pathtype, part one by robrix · Pull Request #687 · github/semantic · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 1, 2025. It is now read-only.

Drop pathtype, part one #687

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jul 18, 2022
Merged

Drop pathtype, part one #687

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
dfb68fa
Reformat.
robrix Jul 14, 2022
c29ed6c
FilePath.
robrix Jul 14, 2022
56bec05
Drop pathtype.
robrix Jul 14, 2022
64f4f0f
Bump version.
robrix Jul 14, 2022
ca7e7e7
semantic-source is nonlocal.
robrix Jul 14, 2022
9f0b837
Build semantic-source in its own dir.
robrix Jul 14, 2022
9fda0e5
Merge branch 'main' into pathological,-part-one
robrix Jul 15, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
semantic-source is nonlocal.
  • Loading branch information
@robrix
robrix committed Jul 14, 2022
commit ca7e7e7f1f44afeb1e82da6310e27cbd3a577d67
1 change: 0 additions & 1 deletion cabal.project
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ packages: semantic
semantic-ruby
semantic-rust
semantic-scope-graph
semantic-source
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Here, and in cabal.project.ci, we remove semantic-source from the top-level project, ensuring that it'll be fetched from hackage. This makes it possible to factor out PRs like this one, at the cost of making it less convenient to change things across both semantic (or any other local package) and semantic-source.

For this PR I think that's worth it; for the next one I might end up reinstating this. But I wanted to factor the PRs out to begin with to limit scope and to be sure we're handling versioning appropriately.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

at the cost of making it less convenient to change things across both

To clarify, this means that the process would be to merge the PR that touches the "downstream" package, cut a new release and deploy it to hackage, and then open the PR in the "upstream" package?

(Not meaning to suggest a different approach, just making sure I understand how the process would be impacted.)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yup. Or more precisely: reintroduce semantic-source as a local package (i.e. add it back to this list) without committing that change, and then do the hackage dance after the fact.

I think the real moral here is that we probably released semantic-source to hackage too early. Lesson learned.

semantic-tags
semantic-tsx
semantic-typescript
4 changes: 0 additions & 4 deletions cabal.project.ci
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ packages: semantic
semantic-ruby
semantic-rust
semantic-scope-graph
semantic-source
semantic-tags
semantic-tsx
semantic-typescript
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -54,9 +53,6 @@ package semantic-ruby
package semantic-scope-graph
ghc-options: -Werror

package semantic-source
ghc-options: -Werror

package semantic-tags
ghc-options: -Werror

Expand Down
0