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

CI: Downgrade Cabal for GHC 8.10.7 (copy #2899) #2902

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 6, 2025

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Mar 6, 2025

Cabal 3.14 silently ignores haddock-options in cabal.project. The change is deliberate (though not warning about it probably is not). The change is documented in some places:

https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/release-notes/cabal-install-3.14.0.0.md

https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/release-notes/WIP-Cabal-3.12.x.0.md

haskell/cabal#9177

(Note that the deprecation message apparently never made it to the release notes)

We should probably think about how to fix this in the future, but for now rolling back to Cabal 3.12 will allow us to build the documentation as we want to again. The mentioned haddock-version-cpp flag in the linked cabal PR 9177 above to get a CPP define for __HADDOCK_VERSION__ did not work at all for me.

PR #2201 was supposed to update our Haddock generation to 9.0.2 but accidentally picked 8.10.7 for the uploads to Hackage, which also fixed issue #2200. I'm careful about upgrading Haddock now as I've experienced several times now that there were undocumented changes going from one version to the next that broke some rendering, and carefully rereading our complete Haddock to scan for such breakage is an impossible task. One day we'll have to upgrade, when we drop GHC 8.10 from Clash.

Still TODO:

  • Write a changelog entry (see changelog/README.md)
  • Check copyright notices are up to date in edited files

This is an automatic copy of pull request #2899 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

@mergify mergify bot added the conflicts label Mar 6, 2025
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Mar 6, 2025

Cherry-pick of 9d94353 has failed:

On branch mergify/copy/1.8/pr-2899
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/1.8'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 9d94353c.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   .ci/docker/Dockerfile
	modified:   .gitlab-ci.yml

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   .ci/docker/build-and-publish-docker-image.sh
	both modified:   .ci/gitlab/benchmark.yml
	both modified:   .ci/gitlab/common.yml
	both modified:   .github/workflows/ci.yml

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

Cabal 3.14 silently ignores `haddock-options` in `cabal.project`. The
change is deliberate (though not warning about it probably is not). The
change is documented in some places:

https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/release-notes/cabal-install-3.14.0.0.md
https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/release-notes/WIP-Cabal-3.12.x.0.md
haskell/cabal#9177

(Note that the deprecation message apparently never made it to the
release notes)

We should probably think about how to fix this in the future, but for
now rolling back to Cabal 3.12 will allow us to build the documentation
as we want to again. The mentioned `haddock-version-cpp` flag in the
linked cabal PR 9177 above  to get a CPP define for
`__HADDOCK_VERSION__` did not work at all for me.

PR #2201 was supposed to update our Haddock generation to 9.0.2 but
accidentally picked 8.10.7 for the uploads to Hackage, which also fixed
issue #2200. I'm careful about upgrading Haddock now as I've experienced
several times now that there were undocumented changes going from one
version to the next that broke some rendering, and carefully rereading
our complete Haddock to scan for such breakage is an impossible task.
One day we'll have to upgrade, when we drop GHC 8.10 from Clash.

(cherry picked from commit 9d94353)
@DigitalBrains1 DigitalBrains1 force-pushed the mergify/copy/1.8/pr-2899 branch from bb89f18 to ef2a6a5 Compare March 6, 2025 11:53
@DigitalBrains1 DigitalBrains1 enabled auto-merge (squash) March 6, 2025 11:53
@DigitalBrains1 DigitalBrains1 merged commit 88c8ccf into 1.8 Mar 6, 2025
15 checks passed
@DigitalBrains1 DigitalBrains1 deleted the mergify/copy/1.8/pr-2899 branch March 6, 2025 16:07
DigitalBrains1 added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 7, 2025
Cabal 3.14 silently ignores `haddock-options` in `cabal.project`. The
change is deliberate (though not warning about it probably is not). The
change is documented in some places:

https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/release-notes/cabal-install-3.14.0.0.md
https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/release-notes/WIP-Cabal-3.12.x.0.md
haskell/cabal#9177

(Note that the deprecation message apparently never made it to the
release notes)

We should probably think about how to fix this in the future, but for
now rolling back to Cabal 3.12 will allow us to build the documentation
as we want to again. The mentioned `haddock-version-cpp` flag in the
linked cabal PR 9177 above  to get a CPP define for
`__HADDOCK_VERSION__` did not work at all for me.

PR #2201 was supposed to update our Haddock generation to 9.0.2 but
accidentally picked 8.10.7 for the uploads to Hackage, which also fixed
issue #2200. I'm careful about upgrading Haddock now as I've experienced
several times now that there were undocumented changes going from one
version to the next that broke some rendering, and carefully rereading
our complete Haddock to scan for such breakage is an impossible task.
One day we'll have to upgrade, when we drop GHC 8.10 from Clash.

(cherry picked from commit 9d94353)

Co-authored-by: Peter Lebbing <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant