brandon s allbery kf8nh

> However, I share Matthew's concern about the workflow for accepting the test. At the moment one has to provision a docker container to run with the appropriate environment for...

> Otherwise, I don't think this job should be required by contributors as it introduces a significant amount of friction. It could be run as part of CI to track...

Uh, let me correct that: the test should always pass, this is accomplished by updating the golden tests by copying the new API files over the old ones as described...

Okay, I've added documentation about the check API job and how to update the API in a PR. The actual API check also outputs a note about where to find...

Also, I switched out `diff` for `cmp`, because with `Cabal`'s 1MB+ API footprint nobody really cares about the details, just that it changed. If someone really wants it, they can...

> Ideally it should be possible to run all cabal tests locally with a single command and update the output within the same framework. The problem with this is that...

@ulysses4ever, I'm not currently finding your question about API vs. platform. 1. Different Linux distributions on the same architecture shouldn't have different APIs, but might require using a different `print-api`...

Some things to consider for the future: (/cc: @Kleidukos) * I have trouble believing `Cabal`'s API is that large. How much of it should move to an internal library? (Having...

> I am against merging anything which requires downloading files from CI in order to make tests pass Are you prepared to confirm that ghc doesn't force this on us...

> It seems to me that `print-api` is small enough to be built from sources every time instead of relying on pre-built binaries. If the objective is to minimize extra...