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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Release fs-sim-0.3.0.1 and fs-sim-0.3.0.1 #80

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2024
Merged

Release fs-sim-0.3.0.1 and fs-sim-0.3.0.1 #80

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 2, 2024

Conversation

jorisdral
Copy link
Collaborator

These are small patches to support io-classes-1.6 and io-classes-1.7.

@jorisdral
Release fs-sim-0.3.0.1 and fs-sim-0.3.0.1
1bd0ee6 
These are small patches to support `io-classes-1.6` and `io-classes-1.7`.
@jorisdral jorisdral self-assigned this Oct 2, 2024
@jorisdral jorisdral requested a review from a team as a code owner October 2, 2024 09:10
jasagredo
jasagredo approved these changes Oct 2, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@jasagredo jasagredo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approved but I'm unsure if this would be a breaking change. If some dependent uses the old strict-stm package it will break for them

@jorisdral
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Approved but I'm unsure if this would be a breaking change. If some dependent uses the old strict-stm package it will break for them

There is no build plan that would include both fs-sim-0.3.0.1 and the old strict-stm, so cabal would fall back on fs-sim-0.3.0.0 instead, right?

@jasagredo
Copy link
Contributor

I think you are right indeed. Sorry for the confusion.

@jorisdral
Copy link
Collaborator Author

jorisdral commented Oct 2, 2024 •
edited
Loading

I think you are right indeed. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries, I'm always slightly unsure how the PVP rules apply when dependency ranges are changed. However, in this case io-classes only reorganised its package/sub-library structure, so the new versions have no functional changes that could cause breakage for users of fs-sim, so I think a patch-level bump is okay

@jorisdral jorisdral added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 2, 2024
Merged via the queue into main with commit efd70ad Oct 2, 2024
22 checks passed
@jorisdral jorisdral deleted the jdral/fs-sim-0.3.0.1 branch October 2, 2024 10:07
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jasagredo jasagredo jasagredo approved these changes

Assignees

@jorisdral jorisdral

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@jorisdral @jasagredo