search

ocaml-ppx / ppx_import

Less redundancy in type declarations and signatures
MIT License
89 stars 28 forks source link

Ppxlib #54

Closed tatchi closed 2 years ago

tatchi commented 3 years ago

This is my attempt at addressing https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppxlib/issues/143. It would need careful review as I'm definitely not a ppx expert. At least the tests are passing which I guess is a good sign 😁

Closes #44

tatchi commented 2 years ago

Thanks @pitag-ha for the review 😊 I unpinned ppxlib and bound it to >=0.24.0 as suggested.

ejgallego commented 2 years ago

Hi folks, I could finally perform some testing on my end, and this PR seems to work very well!

I thus propose to merge and do a release if everyone is happy.

tatchi commented 2 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to test it 🤗 All fine for me to merge it but, to let you know, I noticed that it doesn't work with OCaml 4.13 (due to a change in the AST). I've a local branch where I should have fixed that.

I was waiting for that PR to be merged before opening a new one with the above mentioned fix. Up to you to decide if it should be included in the next release :)

Le jeu. 6 janv. 2022 à 19:38, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias < @.***> a écrit :

Hi folks, I could finally perform some testing on my end, and this PR seems to work very well!

I thus propose to merge and do a release if everyone is happy.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/ocaml-ppx/ppx_import/pull/54#issuecomment-1006824662, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABKV7VEEW3N7H4Y6TCLSLE3UUXORZANCNFSM446TYDEQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

ejgallego commented 2 years ago

I was waiting for that PR to be merged before opening a new one with the above mentioned fix. Up to you to decide if it should be included in the next release :)

I think no problem at all; I propose to merge on Monday evening, so we can maybe cook the release end of next week.

gasche commented 2 years ago

Thanks @tatchi and @pitag-ha for the hard work, and thanks @ejgallego for the review!

@ejgallego, will you take care of preparing a new release? (This is a major change, so I think we should be careful about the build reports for our reverse dependencies, as provided by the opam-repository CI.)

ejgallego commented 2 years ago

@ejgallego, will you take care of preparing a new release?

Yup, as soon as @tatchi adds the PR for 4.13 support.

(This is a major change, so I think we should be careful about the build reports for our reverse dependencies, as provided by the opam-repository CI.)

Sure, I think it will be 1.9.0 tho, as 2.0 may be reserved for #62 if finally goes ahead.

tatchi commented 2 years ago

Yup, as soon as @tatchi adds the PR for 4.13 support.

I will open a PR for that later on today :)