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

Consider v2.26.0 Binary Release for Ubuntu? #1088

Open
lread opened this issue Apr 14, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Consider v2.26.0 Binary Release for Ubuntu? #1088

lread opened this issue Apr 14, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@lread
Copy link
Contributor

lread commented Apr 14, 2022

Problem

I'd like to use planck v2.26.0 on GitHub Actions on ubuntu.

When I install planck on ubuntu following the README instructions, I see:

$ plank --version
2.25.0

Full steps taken on macOS

$ docker run -it ubuntu

And then:

$ apt-get update
$ apt-get install software-properties-common
$ add-apt-repository ppa:mfikes/planck
$ apt-get update
$ apt-get install planck
$ planck --version
2.25.0

Why is this a problem again?

As a part of ensuring that rewrite-clj continues to work with libraries that depend on it, I run their test suites against rewrite-clj master.

Zprint uses planck in its cljs test suite.
Its tests depended on a buggy behavior in planck v2.25.0 (TL;DR effectively this got fixed in v2.26.0: CLSJ-3324). Full deets here.

Zprint corrected its tests to work with planck v2.26.0.
But my canary tests run on GitHub Actions on ubuntu, within which my workflow installs v2.25.0 as the latest version of planck.
And the zprint tests now fail on v2.25.0. 🙂

So...

If it is not a big chore, I'd love to see planck v2.26.0 binaries for ubuntu.

I do see #1087.. maybe that is a blocker?

Am willing to help in any way I can.

lread added a commit to clj-commons/rewrite-clj that referenced this issue Apr 14, 2022
@mfikes
Copy link
Member

mfikes commented Apr 16, 2022

@lread Yes #1087 is a concern. But, I also wonder if the older released binaries also have this problem. (In other words, even though there is a problem, it might not be caused by the 2.26.0 code). But, to be honest, I'd like to solve that one before making further releases.

@lread
Copy link
Contributor Author

lread commented Apr 16, 2022

Thanks for the reply @mfikes, much appreciated.
I can at least see if I can reproduce #1087 on my dev box and then see where that takes me.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants