-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
[new release] mdx (2.4.0) #25355
[new release] mdx (2.4.0) #25355
Conversation
CHANGES: #### Added - Handle the error-blocks syntax (realworldocaml/mdx#439, @jonludlam, @gpetiot) - Allow execution of included OCaml code blocks (realworldocaml/mdx#446, @panglesd) - Make MDX compatible with OCaml 5.2 (realworldocaml/mdx#448, @gpetiot) #### Fixed - Reduce false-positives while detecting warnings (realworldocaml/mdx#440, @Julow)
#25312 has been automatically closed because of a cleanup-gone-wrong on my fork. |
There is a breaking change in the way included blocks are processed (now executed by default). People should probably add an upper bound to their mdx version until they update their files. |
Thank you for the information. In that case, we'd like to see this PR including the upper bounds in affected packages, since otherwise merging this PR will break those packages. @gpetiot do you mind to add the upper bounds? it won't be that difficult with |
oh, after a closer examination, it seems that only tests of the revdeps are broken for most of the cases. in this case, merging this PR without adding upper bounds will mostly just generate noises for the opam-repo CI. therefore, not having the upper bounds in the affected packages is not a clear blocker as far as I concern, |
(an example of |
Thank you, I didn't know this command. However the |
c7c2fa3
to
2bd9565
Compare
Hiya, I removed the last commit. A few comments about that. First, it's better to make the MRs adding such constraint separate from your MR adding a package. That's for CI reasons mostly (it avoids your CI picking up all the issues that all those packages have). It's not so big a deal if you add one or two constraints, but the hundreds here where definitely too many. Second, I'll happily apply the smaller set of constraints if you don't have access to a recent-enough opam. The amount of added constraints in the previous commit was unreasonable. Third, I'd recommend you mention the breaking change in some public space like discuss or the mailing list. That might save some headaches for some developers. Anyway, I've opened PR #25369 |
I have fixed eio's failures separately: #25378 |
CHANGES:
Added
Fixed