Skip to content

SI-10033 First round of deprecation cleanups for 2.13 #5515

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

SI-10033 First round of deprecation cleanups for 2.13 #5515

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

soc
Copy link
Contributor

@soc soc commented Nov 8, 2016

This addresses most of the low-hanging fruits in the standard library.

@soc
Copy link
Contributor Author

soc commented Nov 8, 2016

This shaves off 11% of the jar size. 5.5MB -> 4.9MB.

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

SethTisue commented Nov 8, 2016

I would like to run the community build against this, but we don't quite have the 2.13.x community build in good enough shape yet — fixes are in progress on macro-paradise, genjavadoc, etc.

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

adriaanm commented Nov 8, 2016

Great! It would be really really nice if we could split this up in phases, and do the deprecations that don't break the community build first (most of them look like pure wins), but I'm afraid removing e.g., Pair will break the community build and once it's broken we're flying blind until all deprecations are addressed.

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

adriaanm commented Nov 8, 2016

We can also remove some parts of the community build to make this task easier, but we should be able to build at least the core of the eco-system on 2.13.x by the end of the year.

@soc
Copy link
Contributor Author

soc commented Nov 8, 2016

Build was aborted
Aborted by Adriaan Moors

@adriaanm How can I figure out which changes break the community build?

It would be really really nice if we could split this up in phases

Yes, that's the intention. I tried to avoid most things that looked dangerous in this PR. This PR has only a small subset of pending removals.

I'm afraid removing e.g., Pair

Will restore Pair. (Triple too?) I wanted to have this PR tested on the server, because the ScalaCheck tests all seem to fail on my machine, and I think that's only a local issue.

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

adriaanm commented Nov 8, 2016

ah sorry, meant to abort the job of the closed pr. my bad!

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

adriaanm commented Nov 8, 2016

/rebuild

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

adriaanm commented Nov 8, 2016

Weird, I got the right job, but somehow it's reported here. (Ah, they have the same sha but different target branch)

@soc
Copy link
Contributor Author

soc commented Nov 8, 2016

Thanks! Let's see what the ScalaCheck tests tell us. On my local machine I get error messages as if ScalaCheck wasn't there. This might be a result of the recent out-sourcing of ScalaCheck?

This addresses most of the low-hanging fruits in the standard library.
@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

adriaanm commented Nov 9, 2016

Scalacheck tests pass on the CI! Can you reproduce the error from a clean build?

@soc
Copy link
Contributor Author

soc commented Nov 9, 2016

@adriaanm That depends on how Florida votes. Otherwise I get some well-deserved sleep and try to reproduce it tomorrow. :-)

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

How can I figure out which changes break the community build

You can run the community build locally: https://github.com/scala/community-builds/wiki/Maintenance#local-runs

You can also open an issue or PR in that repo and request that we trigger a Jenkins run.

(Ideally if you opened a PR, Scabot would do a Jenkins run for you; that's scala/scala-jenkins-infra#92)

@soc
Copy link
Contributor Author

soc commented Nov 14, 2016

Also, please drop my name from the CLA list and notify me when it is done.

@SethTisue SethTisue removed this from the 2.13.0-M1 milestone Apr 25, 2017
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants