Skip to content
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

Jump to bottom

sphinx: 2.2.2 -> 2.3.1 #78425

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

sphinx: 2.2.2 -> 2.3.1 #78425

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

bgamari
Copy link
Contributor

@bgamari bgamari commented Jan 24, 2020

Just a version bump.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

Do you know if there's any breaking changes? a lot of packages used sphinx to generate documentation

@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

also, please target staging branch as this causes >1000 rebuilds

@bgamari bgamari changed the base branch from master to staging January 24, 2020 23:03
@bgamari
Copy link
Contributor Author

bgamari commented Jan 24, 2020

The only two breaking changes are listed here.

@bgamari
sphinx: 2.2.2 -> 2.3.1
ce4431c 
Just a version bump.
@ofborg ofborg bot removed the 6.topic: TeX Issues regarding texlive and TeX in general label Jan 24, 2020
@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

any breaking changes are very concerning, as this will usually mean regressions in some packages.

@bgamari
Copy link
Contributor Author

bgamari commented Jan 27, 2020

Fair enough; I suppose the right way to address this would be to try building the reverse dependency set of sphinx. However, I don't off-hand know how to do this.

@FRidh FRidh added this to WIP in Staging via automation Jan 29, 2020
@FRidh FRidh self-assigned this Jan 29, 2020
@FRidh FRidh added this to the 20.03 milestone Feb 6, 2020
@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Feb 6, 2020

I've included it in #79375.

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Feb 10, 2020

this is in master now

@FRidh FRidh closed this Feb 10, 2020
Staging automation moved this from WIP to Done Feb 10, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@FRidh FRidh Awaiting requested review from FRidh

@jonringer jonringer Awaiting requested review from jonringer

Assignees

@FRidh FRidh

Labels
6.topic: python 10.rebuild-darwin: 501+ 10.rebuild-darwin: 5001+ 10.rebuild-linux: 501+ 10.rebuild-linux: 5001+
Projects
Staging
  
Done
Milestone
20.03
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@bgamari @jonringer @FRidh