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

Bump project version from 3.11 to 3.13 #9897

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2024

Conversation

sheaf
Copy link
Collaborator

@sheaf sheaf commented Apr 16, 2024

This PR bumps the Cabal version from 3.11 to 3.13, as the release branch for 3.12 has already been cut.

Copy link
Collaborator

@geekosaur geekosaur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks okay to me, but CI thinks we're still depending on 3.11 somewhere.

ETA: correction, cabal-install is of course still 3.11 for this, but it's using Cabal-syntax 3.10.1.0 for some reason.

@sheaf
Copy link
Collaborator Author

sheaf commented Apr 16, 2024

Looks okay to me, but CI thinks we're still depending on 3.11 somewhere.

Yeah there's still some work to do, I don't know how these bumps were done in the past.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 17, 2024

@sheaf: here's the latest PR that does that (but it uses version 3.12 and this one needs 3.13): #9788 and here's the last PR that did this for master branch: #8844. Hope that helps.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 18, 2024

@sheaf
Copy link
Collaborator Author

sheaf commented Apr 22, 2024

I've updated the bootstrap plans and added a few missing version bumps. Let's see how far we get now.

@sheaf sheaf force-pushed the wip/bump-cabal-3-13 branch 3 times, most recently from d8a4a31 to f81b46a Compare April 22, 2024 10:49
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 22, 2024

BTW, since this ticket was opened, the release checklist has changed and now also these steps need to be done on branch master (unless done already; probably a half is): #9729

Edit: but it doesn't need to be in this ticket. They are only vaguely related.

Edit2: Actually, now that these steps are separated, they are best done on release branch and forwardported, [edit: actually, doing them on master and backporting is what the documentation says and it's probably correct, but they seem quite separate anyway] so probably nothing to do here. However, previously some of them were part of the https://github.com/haskell/cabal/wiki/Making-a-release#c3-bumping-version-numbers section linked above, so it's worth nothing they are now gone and why.

@sheaf sheaf force-pushed the wip/bump-cabal-3-13 branch 15 times, most recently from dc0e4af to f32497e Compare April 23, 2024 13:53
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 23, 2024

This is a part of the release process, so let's fast-track, unless anybody needs more time to review (I will now).

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 23, 2024

@mergify rebase

Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Apr 23, 2024

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

tests: False
benchmarks: False

index-state: hackage.haskell.org 2024-04-22T06:16:57Z
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Proliferation of index-states is concerning. Ideally, it'd be done with import's.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think #9901 makes that difficult currently.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I haven't put enough thought into possible workarounds. I guess, this PR should be merged asap, and we can think about it more, later.

Comment on lines +14 to +15
, Cabal ^>=3.4.1.0 || ^>=3.6.3.0 || ^>=3.10.1.0 || ^>=3.12.1.0
, Cabal-syntax ^>=3.8.1.0 || ^>=3.10.1.0 || ^>=3.12.1.0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The first release from these series will be exceptionally 3.12.0.0, but it's indeed unlikely anybody is bootstrapping until cabal-install is released in 3.12.1.0.

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.

Thank you very much!

tests: False
benchmarks: False

index-state: hackage.haskell.org 2024-04-22T06:16:57Z
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sigh. I will report about this duplicated index state and the breakage that necessitated this new file in #9901

@Mikolaj Mikolaj added release merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days labels Apr 23, 2024
@mergify mergify bot merged commit 3395fa1 into haskell:master Apr 23, 2024
43 checks passed
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 23, 2024

I forgot it now merges after only a few jobs pass for an uknown reason. I will monitor that the rebased CI finishes.

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

Interestingly, there is nothing about this in the Mergify rulebase, so it's presumably a code change in Mergify. I wish I'd been able to find documentation on mergify.com, but it seems to all be marketing information. ☹️

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 23, 2024

I suspect it's related to branch protection rules in Settings, but they do look fine as well.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

I forgot it now merges after only a few jobs pass for an uknown reason. I will monitor that the rebased CI finishes.

I missed when this problem appeared. I am reasonably sure that it's due to #9355. After it, Validate post job always "succeeds" instantaneously and can fail later on on the real runs, if there are any, but Mergify won't wait and once it sees "success" there, it merges right away. /cc @BinderDavid

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Apr 23, 2024

@geekosaur: I've bumped your repo permissions to Maintain. I wonder if you can see the Settings tab now.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

I wish I'd been able to find documentation on mergify.com

How is https://docs.mergify.com/?

@BinderDavid
Copy link
Contributor

BinderDavid commented Apr 24, 2024

Should we open a separate issue for this? I fail to see who exactly is responsible here: mergify or the github branch protection rules. https://docs.mergify.com/workflow/actions/merge/ for example is quite unclear and vague:

Mergify always respects the branch protection settings

but also

The following protection settings are only partially supported by Mergify:
Require status checks to pass before merging;

When I implemented the logic for the faster documentation CI I focused on getting the code correct for the branch protection logic that Github uses. I thought that mergify only provides additional convenience features on top of Github's rules, and that it can't override something that Github branch protection forbids, but now I am not so sure anymore.

Edit: I now recall that https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/13690 is the relevant thread that describes the annoying Github restriction which made the workaround necessary in the first place.

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

@BinderDavid thanks for a prompt response! I think no one, including the approvers of your PR, could have anticipated this interaction between GH and Mergify (assuming this is the real reason of the problem, which is not a given). Indeed, opening a separate ticket would be good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge release
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants