-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
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
Remove unused type parameter for Parallel instances #3042
Remove unused type parameter for Parallel instances #3042
Conversation
The failing 2.13 test is unrelated, so I restarted the job. I'm not sure whether it needs attention:
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3042 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 93.46% 93.43% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 368 368
Lines 6975 6975
Branches 187 187
==========================================
- Hits 6519 6517 -2
- Misses 456 458 +2
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
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 am going to wait for Oscar until this afternoon. but I think it's such a trivial one that we can safely merge with 2 maintainer approvals. |
Personally I’m far more worried about binary incompatibility because they show up at runtime when linking large sets of dependencies together. Source incompatibility isn’t great, but can be detected with a compiler and doesn’t hit you at runtime. Also, for almost all users, they won’t see this because 1. Parallel isn’t that commonly used, 2. I imagine they are resolving this method implicitly. |
This PR includes @Billzabob's commit from #2789 but rebased against current master, where the change has to happen in two places, and slightly adjusted to avoid breaking binary compatibility.
I missed @Billzabob's PR the first time around but should have caught this in #3012.
The change does technically break source compatibility, but (while it fixes a real problem) it's also pretty minor, so I'm not worried about it causing anyone problems. I personally think we can / should try to get it into 2.0.0 today.