Conversation
| private[scalacheck] implicit def buildableSeq[T]: Buildable[T, Seq[T]] = | ||
| def buildableSeq[T]: Buildable[T, Seq[T]] = | ||
| new Buildable[T, Seq[T]] { | ||
| def builder: mutable.Builder[T, Seq[T]] = | ||
| Seq.newBuilder[T] | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private[scalacheck] implicit def implicitBuildableSeq[T]: Buildable[T, Seq[T]] = buildableSeq |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A minor thing, but lets us keep bincompat with a static forwarder without adding an exclusion.
The problem was introduced in #788 (see discussion there).
| ThisBuild / tlBaseVersion := "1.15" | ||
| ThisBuild / tlMimaPreviousVersions ++= Set( | ||
| // manually added because tags are not v-prefixed | ||
| "1.14.0", | ||
| "1.14.1", | ||
| "1.14.2", | ||
| "1.14.3", | ||
| "1.15.0", | ||
| "1.15.1", | ||
| "1.15.2", | ||
| "1.15.3", | ||
| "1.15.4", | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is annoying, but gets the job done.
Any objection to using early-semver for scalacheck going forward?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an alternative to regular semver? What's the difference when we're past 0.x?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For some reason I thought scalacheck may be using PVP? Happy to be wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, the release notes say 1.14.x is not backwards-compatible with anything before it.
https://github.com/typelevel/scalacheck/blob/main/CHANGELOG.markdown#1140-2018-04-22
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, yeah. The breaking change in a minor version was a driver for a major version bump in libraries as prominent as Cats. Binary compatibility weighs very heavily on this project, and we shouldn't do that again.
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| ThisBuild / crossScalaVersions := Seq(Scala3, Scala212, Scala213) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This PR restores the single Scala 3 build. Of course, we can't merge it today, but once the -Yscala-release flag arrives I think this should work fine.
Incidentally, you'll find that CI is running Scala 3 + Native jobs :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, we could dial this back to Scala 3.0.2 and merge this today.
|
Woops, conflicts... |
rossabaker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems good to me. Requesting changes to make sure the Scala 3 gets rolled back to 3.0.2, or else we're deciding for the whole world.
| ThisBuild / tlBaseVersion := "1.15" | ||
| ThisBuild / tlMimaPreviousVersions ++= Set( | ||
| // manually added because tags are not v-prefixed | ||
| "1.14.0", | ||
| "1.14.1", | ||
| "1.14.2", | ||
| "1.14.3", | ||
| "1.15.0", | ||
| "1.15.1", | ||
| "1.15.2", | ||
| "1.15.3", | ||
| "1.15.4", | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As an alternative to regular semver? What's the difference when we're past 0.x?
|
Does this supersede #860? |
|
I didn't understand we lose native support on Scala 3 with this rollback. So our choices are:
? |
|
Yes, Scala Native requires 3.1. I think we should wait until the new FWIW, scalameta/munit#477 is an important PR blocked by this one, and they are also waiting for the new flag. |
|
See also portable-scala/sbt-crossproject#130 for why I don't want to mess around with option (3). |
|
I suppose a fourth option is a prerelease as the next minor version that builds for Scala 3.1, with the assumption that Scala 3.1.2 will precede it. As someone almost entirely on Scala 2 and not at all on Scala Native, easy for me to say, but I'm content to wait. |
|
I'd be happy to get this PR merged as-is, and then we can discuss the Native/3 situation :) |
rossabaker
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've never been a primary maintainer, so I won't hit the green button, but if nobody objects in the next couple days, I will.
|
Thanks! Gah, conflicts again! |
|
Sorry, I just merged one that had been approved for months. |
|
No worries, I'm glad to see activity here :) |
I'm not sure if any of us here are "primary maintainer"s anymore |
No description provided.