-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15
Update CHANGES and remove astring #18
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,21 +1,39 @@ | ||
2.0.0 | ||
----- | ||
# 3.0.0 | ||
|
||
### Changed | ||
|
||
- Remove astring dependency (@jonludlam, #18) | ||
|
||
### Fixed | ||
|
||
- Better handling of reference syntax (@EmileTrotignon, #13) | ||
|
||
### Added | ||
|
||
- Delimited code blocks with associated output (@jonludlam, #17) | ||
- New @hidden tag (@3Rafal, #16) | ||
- Table syntax (@gpetiot, #11, @panglesd, #14) | ||
|
||
# 2.0.0 - 2022-07-07 | ||
|
||
### Added | ||
|
||
- New inline and display math markup (@giltho, #5) | ||
|
||
1.0.1 | ||
----- | ||
# 1.0.1 - 2022-07-05 | ||
|
||
### Added | ||
|
||
- OCaml 5.0 support (@talex5, #6) | ||
|
||
1.0.0 | ||
----- | ||
# 1.0.0 - 2021-12-11 | ||
|
||
### Added | ||
|
||
- New syntax to allow associating metadata with code blocks | ||
(@Julow, #2, #3) | ||
|
||
0.9.0 | ||
----- | ||
# 0.9.0 - 2021-07-02 | ||
|
||
- Extracted from odoc repository | ||
|
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ | |
(backend bisect_ppx)) | ||
(flags | ||
(:standard -w -50)) | ||
(libraries astring result camlp-streams)) | ||
(libraries result camlp-streams)) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why is removing There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. odoc-parser is used by more than just odoc. In this particular case, since once we drop support for <=4.03 the functionality we need is entirely in stdlib, it seems just good hygiene. I'm quite keen to drop old OCaml support fairly soon (and at a major version number). There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The drop of support is not planned for this release ? Then I think this can wait. This effectively remove a dependency from OCamlformat (the only user of the parser that I know of and don't use astring) so this is still welcome. Though, I don't think accumulating "compat" code is good hygiene. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why wait? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. You are right, with the planned removal of the new compat functions, I don't see a problem with adding them. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This releases adds two constructors, which is a breaking change only for users that consume the entire AST. These users will break for every changes.
The
Code_block
constructor is changed, which breaks all known users.These are breaking changes but require a small amount of maintenance. Given that this library exposes an AST and that every changes are breaking changes, I'd argue that we don't need to make a major release.
Also, a version number above 2.2.0 will prevent us from merging the two projects again. For which, the discussion is still open ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That all changes are breaking is a choice, because we could add versioned API support if we really wanted. I don't follow the argument about merging? It was never suggested we merge the opam packages again, so I don't see why they shouldn't have independent version numbers?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We talked about merging the git repositories ? Independent version numbers are possible but a lot of work to get right. It's also not intuitive.
Why would the two projects have independent version numbers ? Both projects evolve together, I don't see the point in the added release complexity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think there is an important distinction. A comment written using odoc-parser syntax requires a particular version of the parser, not a particular version of odoc.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This doesn't contradict giving versions to the parser according to Odoc's. "this comment is written using the parser from odoc version x".
We more often add things to the parser than we remove. I think if a comment requires a specific version of the parser, it also constraints Odoc because it'll need a recent enough version.