Skip to content

Rebase fixLinkDeps onto solver branch #3360

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

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Apr 19, 2016
Merged

Conversation

grayjay
Copy link
Collaborator

@grayjay grayjay commented Apr 18, 2016

All but the last two commits are from #3359.

See #3357. I rebased https://github.com/edsko/cabal/tree/pr/FixLinkDeps, except for the last commit, which handles a different issue. I also removed my commits, because they weren't needed.

/cc @edsko

@edsko edsko merged commit 6949def into haskell:solver Apr 19, 2016
@edsko
Copy link
Contributor

edsko commented Apr 19, 2016

@grayjay I'm somewhat confused. What is the status on #3327 now? Do we have a solution? Does the solver branch now have my fix for the incorrect link groups (the unqualifation-requalification thing) and your original solution to #3327? And the discussion at the end of #3357 (comment) we still don't have a good answer for? Is that correct?

@grayjay
Copy link
Collaborator Author

grayjay commented Apr 20, 2016

@edsko This PR only contains your solution to #3268, which uses unqualifyDeps. I wasn't sure what to do about #3327. I think that my PR is incomplete because it doesn't contain GoalReasonChains, and we haven't decided what to do with lgBlame and lgConflictSet.

@grayjay grayjay deleted the rebase-FixLinkDeps branch April 20, 2016 02:58
@edsko
Copy link
Contributor

edsko commented Apr 20, 2016

Yes, I think the answer to that isn't clear yet, but it would be good if we have have the test cases you have for #3327 available on the solver branch (where we expect them to fail right now).

@grayjay
Copy link
Collaborator Author

grayjay commented Apr 20, 2016

I cherry-picked that test case, but I think it is currently passing because of a different fix.

@edsko
Copy link
Contributor

edsko commented Apr 20, 2016

Aha, I see. That explains my confusion :) That's a little unfortunate.

@grayjay
Copy link
Collaborator Author

grayjay commented Apr 20, 2016

Yeah, there is a lot of overlap between conflict sets. I'll try to come up with a more specific test.

@grayjay
Copy link
Collaborator Author

grayjay commented Apr 20, 2016

I added a test in #3363.

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.

2 participants