-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 213
feat: add older versions of the wrappers extension
#1748
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: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
wrappers extensionwrappers extension
ecf641f to
ff4cef2
Compare
1eb74b8 to
db1e5e4
Compare
0878bd2 to
b842e89
Compare
b500264 to
229115e
Compare
229115e to
4947f52
Compare
ff4cef2 to
21ade98
Compare
wrappers extensionwrappers extension
21ade98 to
8c1a800
Compare
8c1a800 to
b8a95f8
Compare
b8a95f8 to
8533f41
Compare
wrappers extensionwrappers extension
| }; | ||
| } | ||
| // lib.optionalAttrs (version == "0.3.0") { | ||
| patches = [ ./0001-bump-pgrx-to-0.11.3.patch ]; |
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 do the same change for versions <= 0.3.0, maybe there is a way to have one condition here ?
I guess it will be the same for the older versions (0.1.7 -> 0.1.14) that are not here yet.
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.
Actually I didn't patch pgrx for older versions, and I consider even in the end to not patch it for 0.2.0 or 0.3.0 and to rather add more versions to nix/cargo-pgrx/versions.json, WDYT?
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.
If the whole block is the same (including the cargo lock file and/or the patch) for all versions <= 0.3.0 we should only have 1 block
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 might want to move it to nix/ext/scripts instead so that nix/ext only contains the extensions
| @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ | |||
| #! /usr/bin/env nix-shell | |||
| #! nix-shell -i python3 -p python3 git nix-prefetch-git python3Packages.packaging | |||
|
|
|||
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.
Add a few lines of documentation on what is does and maybe an example of how we can use it
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.
Yes indeed, should I put that in nix/docs/adding-new-package.md or nix/docs/update-extension.md or both?
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.
adding-new-package.md needs a complete rewrite, I would add it in update-extension.md first and do another PR/TODO for improving overall documentation (removing the old way) on how to create/update multi version extensions
6323605 to
3479d30
Compare
... which is handy when it comes to compute hashes for every source tarball in a bulk :)
3479d30 to
27123ff
Compare
This PR add a few commits on top of #1743