Merged
Conversation
Merged
Member
Author
|
Well, that's no good because 3.16 doesn't support the older GHCs we still support. I'll just do the CPP. |
tomjaguarpaw
force-pushed
the
Cabal-3.16
branch
2 times, most recently
from
d236984 to
8aace1c
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The Cabal API broke in 3.16 so supporting 3.16 and older versions would require some form of conditional compilation
@bgamari , are you OK with this? @sheaf, you wrote this, what do you think?
Github runners seem to have migrated to 3.16 and I can't merge #352 until we have a fix in place. I'm OK with finding some way (maybe CPP) of widening the bound again later. Since this is just for tests I don't think it's critical.