Skip to content
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

[POC] Use Unroll plugin for binary compatibility #113

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

lihaoyi
Copy link
Member

@lihaoyi lihaoyi commented Feb 10, 2024

No description provided.

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ import com.github.lolgab.mill.mima._

val scala212 = "2.12.17"
val scala213 = "2.13.10"
val scala3 = "3.1.3"
val scala3 = "3.3.1"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this intentional? We drop support for older Scala 3 version, which might be Ok, but should be done in a new 0.x bump.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's a compiler plugin, so will need separate implementations for each Scala version I think.

It's possible to support 3.1.3, but the initial proof of concept is only against 3.3.1. Will have to decide whether or not to drop 3.1.3 before merging this, but I'd be in favor just to support the 3.3.x LTS versions

build.sc Outdated

def ivyDeps = Agg(
ivy"com.lihaoyi::unroll-annotation:0.1.9",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is unroll-annotation needed transitively, or only at compile time?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Only at compile time. I can have the plugin remove the annotation if necessary, haven't thought deeply about whether that's the right thing to do

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should move it into compileIvyDeps then.

Since we are more or less generating stuff that is not part of the actual API but rather some inconvenient necessity, not forcing a transitive dependency on this implementation detail for all downstream users seem to be the right thing.

@lihaoyi lihaoyi marked this pull request as draft February 10, 2024 17:13
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.

2 participants