Update for latest Gleam #138
Conversation
- Gleam releases now use LLVM triplets for platforms so the download URLs have been updated accordingly. - Gleam's rebar3 support has been removed. This change means that future versions of this action cannot download older versions of Gleam. I can make it backwards compatible, but I will need help from someone who can convert the shell script into PowerShell for Windows.
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
requested review from
starbelly and
paulo-ferraz-oliveira
|
Hi, @lpil. I'd usually not worry about backward compatibility before 1.0.0 (following Semantic Versioning principles) - which is Gleam's case. At the same time, if Cheers. |
This is an interesting one... does a backward incompatible change for a supported language mean that we break compatibility for users and thus need to bump the major version? It may be the a big note in the README.md is good enough. I'm not 100% sure on this on tbh. I tend to think that since our API has not changed, then we do not need to bump the major. To boot, gleam is not 1.0 yet, thus it should be somewhat expected, no? Thoughts? |
|
I already have the code for backwards compatibility using shell, so I could add that and we leave windows support as a future addition? |
That sounds quite amenable to me :) |
|
@lpil, sure thing. Would you create an issue for what would need to be done, so somebody can take a look at it later? Cheers. |
|
Fab! I've updated this PR and created the issue. The build is failing but isn't printing any debug information. Is there a way to get more out of it? It passes for other installations so I'm not sure what might be happening. |
There's no gleam-0.23.0-rc1-linux-amd64.tar.gz for v0.23.0-rc1 |
lpil
force-pushed
the
new-gleam
branch
3 times, most recently
from
75620ea
to
64bad4f
Compare
|
Ah there it is! I found a typo in the script. |
|
@paulo-ferraz-oliveira LGTM. |
|
Yup, LGTM too. @lpil, if you have no more changes we can merge. Would you prefer we also tag it after that (as a minor, as explained)?
You 👍'ed, but there are no changes. Is that on purpose?
@starbelly, I've re-read the Semantic Versioning stuff and am unsure, too, but my personal preference is to not consider it breaking in this specific case, since it's "our" API that didn't break. |
|
Oh yes! I forgot to remove the rebar bits. I have done that now |
|
Merging... Many thanks, @lpil. |
|
Wonderful, thank you! Would it be possible to get this released soon? I would like to start using new Gleam versions 😅 |
Yup, we certainly can 👍 Edit: I have made the tag v1.13.0. I need to check with @paulo-ferraz-oliveira on something before forcing this into @v1 along with a change from Wojtek. |
|
I'll release and tag this today, and by then it'll also contain a pull request of mine 😄. |
|
@starbelly, I'll move your tag, if that's Ok, since it was never released in any case... |
|
v1.13.0 released, v1.13 tagged, v1 moved (to v1.13) |
URLs have been updated accordingly.
This change means that future versions of this action cannot download
older versions of Gleam. I can make it backwards compatible, but I will
need help from someone who can convert the shell script into PowerShell
for Windows.