Kristoffer Carlsson
Kristoffer Carlsson
This is annoying because I get an error when the nightly check happens now which means I cannot add a new normal julia version at all.
Also cc @ChrisRackauckas who has thought about these stuff.
> I might be missing something, but I think it should be possible for down to be fully symmetric with up. Yes, but as I wrote in https://github.com/JuliaLang/Pkg.jl/issues/1062#issuecomment-1952096504, the whole...
> What I do want to be able to test is the oldest set of compatible packages. Okay, I think this can be extended to do that. I will try......
> Yeah, I was imagining the exact same behaviour as up, but instead of seeking newer versions it seeks older versions. Again, I am not sure that is useful in...
> Afterall, we also think it's okay that when I ]test a package with a given set of upper bounds (either explicit or implicit), that we don't end up testing...
I'm not sure if the error messages will be so bad. They will basically always be of the form that one of the direct dependencies limits another of the direct...
In https://github.com/julia-actions/julia-downgrade-compat, why does it set `~` on the post 1.0 pacakge: > This action will modify the compat to: > >```toml >[compat] >julia = "1.6" >Foo = "~1.2.3" >Bar...
Ok you expect this but why would it be *useful*?
> Having a less fussy ]down that gives a reasonable set of old versions I can test on without having to comb through and meticulously purge my Project.toml of incompatible...