[new release] ppx_expect_nobase (0.17.3.0) #28790
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Kakadu
changed the title
Kakadu
force-pushed
the
release-ppx_expect_nobase-v0.17.3+nobase-2
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5c78efd to
3b53cfb
Compare
Kakadu
changed the title
jmid
reviewed
Oct 30, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks!
At first I was puzzled by the version-scheme 0.17.3+nobase-2, but then realized that you are aiming for agreement with the ppx_expect versions.
On that note, I noticed that you named this packages/ppx_expect_nobase/ppx_expect_nobase.0.17.3+nobase-2/opam
whereas the previous version was named
packages/ppx_expect_nobase/ppx_expect_nobase.v0.17.2.2/opam
- This drops the
ppx_expect-compatiblev-prefix though. Was that an oversight? - Why switch from a
.2suffix to a+nobase-2suffix? After all, the package is already namednobase, so that suffix-part seems redundant 🤔
Unrelated: Would you consider an x-maintenance-intent entry?
https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/blob/master/governance/policies/archiving.md
Kakadu
force-pushed
the
release-ppx_expect_nobase-v0.17.3+nobase-2
branch
from
3b53cfb to
0067233
Compare
CHANGES: Strip base and other dependecies.
Kakadu
force-pushed
the
release-ppx_expect_nobase-v0.17.3+nobase-2
branch
from
0067233 to
801e062
Compare
Kakadu
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Kakadu <[email protected]>
jmid
approved these changes
Nov 1, 2025
| bug-reports: "https://github.com/Kakadu/ppx_expect_nobase/issues" | ||
| depends: [ | ||
| "dune" {>= "3.11"} | ||
| "ocaml" {>= "4.14.2" & < "5.0.0" | >= "5.3.0" & <= "5.4.0"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just wondering: These are rather specific bounds.
- How does this fail on 5.0, 5.1, 5.2?
- There's also a policy to avoid a preventive upper bound such as
<= "5.4.0"
https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/tree/master/governance/policies#5-strict-dependency-constraints-should-be-avoided---or-preventive-upper-bounds
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I removed the upper bound.
Signed-off-by: Kakadu <[email protected]>
|
Thanks |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Cram like framework for OCaml (with stripped dependencies)