Skip to content

Updates for persistent-2.5 and base-4.9#141

Closed
paul-rouse wants to merge 3 commits intoprowdsponsor:masterfrom
paul-rouse:master
Closed

Updates for persistent-2.5 and base-4.9#141
paul-rouse wants to merge 3 commits intoprowdsponsor:masterfrom
paul-rouse:master

Conversation

@paul-rouse
Copy link

I've built this and run the tests (sqlite only) with lts-6.2, lts-6.2 plus forced persistent*-2.5.X, and nightly-2016-06-08 to bring GHC 8 into the mix.

I included a major version bump because of the type constraint on deleteKey changing.

Something has changed in the way persistent exports count, so I had to hide it explicitly, but I didn't get to the bottom of why.

Hope it helps!

@paul-rouse
Copy link
Author

Just to be clear - this differs from #134 and #139 in that it is still compatible with previous persistent releases.

@tebello-thejane
Copy link

So... will this be getting released soon?

ilovezfs added a commit to ilovezfs/git-annex that referenced this pull request Jul 22, 2016
aws 0.14.0 is incompatible with http-conduit 2.2.0
aristidb/aws#206

esqueleto 2.4.3 is incompatible with persistent 2.5
prowdsponsor/esqueleto#137
prowdsponsor/esqueleto#141
prowdsponsor/esqueleto#139

Solver needs these hints when building git-annex with +S3 and +Webapp.
@bitemyapp
Copy link
Contributor

Keep in mind the people that prompted the changes in Persistent 2.5 already have a variant of Esqueleto updated to work with them: https://github.com/pseudonom/esqueleto/tree/split-db

If you don't mind I'll put a PR of @pseudonom's changes in and ping the owner.

@tebello-thejane
Copy link

As @paul-rouse said above

Just to be clear - this differs from #134 and #139 in that it is still compatible with previous persistent releases.

@pseudonom's changes do not allow esqueleto to work with versions of persistent < 2.5, thereby drastically increasing the possibility that cabal won't be able to compile complicated projects which use esqueleto.

This current PR seems to be the most appropriate one but it isn't getting merged?

@bitemyapp
Copy link
Contributor

do not allow Esqueleto to work with versions of persistent < 2.5

Ah yeah, that's an ache and a good point.

@pseudonom
Copy link
Contributor

The thing I like about my PR is that it annotates select as a read-only operation and allows you to use it against a read DB. Should we use CPP to come up with a PR that satisfies both criteria?

@bitemyapp
Copy link
Contributor

@pseudonom that was originally why I wanted your version. If you could reconcile the benefits of both, even with CPP, that would be great.

@paul-rouse
Copy link
Author

Of course this PR uses CPP too, in just one file. It would be great if we can get the best of both worlds - I didn't attempt to make use of the new read-only functionality. Give me a shout if I can help, for example with testing.

@pseudonom pseudonom mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2016
@paul-rouse
Copy link
Author

I suggest we close this in favour of #144

@paul-rouse paul-rouse closed this Jul 24, 2016
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.

4 participants