-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
Require Julia v1.10 (LTS) #140
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #140 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.83% 94.81% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 4 5 +1
Lines 445 444 -1
==========================================
- Hits 422 421 -1
Misses 23 23 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
LinearAlgebra = "1" | ||
Random = "1" | ||
Test = "1" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you sure about these changes? A while ago I was told that "<0.0.1, 1" would be needed in some scenarios even on somewhat recent Julia versions. But I don't recall the details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it was https://discourse.julialang.org/t/psa-compat-requirements-in-the-general-registry-are-changing/104958#update-november-9th-2023-2 that I had in mind.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That discussion seems to be relevant only to Julia <v1.10.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The issue linked in the latest suggestion (of adding <0.0.1
) seems to be present in Julia > 1.4 as well: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/why-random-jl-is-fixed-to-version-0-0-0/105957/2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But do we really want to support this setup when we aren't testing it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also in that discourse someone said:
Right, and the issue is only seen on older versions of Julia
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To my knowledge that's only correct if you do not perform any Pkg operations in your tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But again, we haven't tested such a configuration and so it doesn't make sense to me why we would want to support it
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <[email protected]>
The motivation for this change would be to allow adding extensions without adding unnecessary dependencies for users on pre-v1.10.
In particular, this makes it easier to finish #138