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

Require Julia v1.10 (LTS) #140

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Require Julia v1.10 (LTS) #140

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

dlfivefifty
Copy link
Member

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

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.81%. Comparing base (d64a878) to head (ca20c4f).

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.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Comment on lines +23 to +25
LinearAlgebra = "1"
Random = "1"
Test = "1"
Copy link
Member

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.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member Author

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.

Copy link
Member

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

Copy link
Member Author

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?

Copy link
Member Author

@dlfivefifty dlfivefifty Dec 18, 2024

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

Copy link
Member

@devmotion devmotion Dec 18, 2024

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.

Copy link
Member Author

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

.github/workflows/CI.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/CI.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/runtests.jl Show resolved Hide resolved
dlfivefifty and others added 2 commits December 18, 2024 10:11
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants