Hi Johannes
Please correct me if i am wrong but i think the "scalafmt" and "new
package names" should be straight forward transformations that could be
applied to the scala3 branch as well.
This should not lead to a merge hell i believe. Wouldn't this also be a
possible approach?
Daniel
On 11/3/22 11:07, Johannes Rudolph wrote:
Hi,
for pekko-http, we need to think about how to approach the first few
changes. We should do:
* integrate the Scala 3 branch that was not yet released
* move from scalariform to scalafmt
* new package names
Originally, the Scala 3 branch was not yet merged (and therefore
missed 10.2.10) because it does not mix all to well with Scala 2.12
support. It works but it requires some hacky patching of source files
to remove some code that cannot be compiled on all targets (we tried
to avoid version-dependent source files especially here since it
touches the biggest source file, headers.scala, and we have had many
bad experiences with bugs in versioned forks of source files).
At this point I would probably just merge the existing Scala 3 branch
to ensure this work is not lost even if it adds complexity to the
build. The hope would be that we might be able to drop Scala 2.12 soon
after the first release to clean things up.
In general, it goes somewhat against the goal of not adding any
changes in the first version of pekko but doing the merge later on
will be quite painful.
If you agree, we should try to do the changes in the order as shown above.
(Obviously, we should use the state of the scala-3 branch before the
license change. Afterwards, a merge from main was added containing the
license change.)
WDYT?
Johannes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
