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

Revisit bug compatibility unfix for returning Proxy #2113

Open
AlexDaniel opened this Issue Jul 22, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@AlexDaniel
Member

AlexDaniel commented Jul 22, 2018

Recent changes in rakudo required PRs like this to several modules in the ecosystem. Arguably in these cases (when returning Proxy without is rw) the code is wrong, but many modules were doing that. Even though I submitted PRs to affected modules as per #2047, it is desired to have backward compatibility with existing code before we get the release going.

<jnthn> Ah, I still should put in that Proxy compat thing, though that's easy
@jnthn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jnthn

jnthn Jul 23, 2018

Member

Done in 8607f68. Testing of the affected modules would be welcome. Given this isn't a desired behavior, no test needed, though we do need a plan for when we remove the bug fix, and probably should create an issue for that.

Member

jnthn commented Jul 23, 2018

Done in 8607f68. Testing of the affected modules would be welcome. Given this isn't a desired behavior, no test needed, though we do need a plan for when we remove the bug fix, and probably should create an issue for that.

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel self-assigned this Jul 23, 2018

@AlexDaniel AlexDaniel changed the title from Backward compatibility for returning Proxy without `is rw` to Revisit bug compatibility unfix for returning Proxy Jul 23, 2018

@AlexDaniel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AlexDaniel

AlexDaniel Jul 23, 2018

Member

though we do need a plan for when we remove the bug fix, and probably should create an issue for that.

I'm repurposing this ticket instead of creating a new one.

Member

AlexDaniel commented Jul 23, 2018

though we do need a plan for when we remove the bug fix, and probably should create an issue for that.

I'm repurposing this ticket instead of creating a new one.

@lizmat lizmat added the 6.d label Jul 26, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment