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

Backports for 1.11.3 #56741

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: release-1.11
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Backports for 1.11.3 #56741

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

KristofferC
Copy link
Member

@KristofferC KristofferC commented Dec 3, 2024

Backported PRs:

Need manual backport:

Contains multiple commits, manual intervention needed:

Non-merged PRs with backport label:

@KristofferC KristofferC added the release Release management and versioning. label Dec 3, 2024
@maleadt
Copy link
Member

maleadt commented Dec 10, 2024

This also needs to include LinearAlgebra.jl back-ports: https://github.com/JuliaLang/LinearAlgebra.jl/issues?q=state%3Aclosed%20label%3A%22backport%201.11%22
Or should those be made into commits here against release-1.11 (where the stdlib hasn't been moved out)?

@KristofferC
Copy link
Member Author

Or should those be made into commits here against release-1.11 (where the stdlib hasn't been moved out)?

I've been thinking about it and I think the easiest is just to cherry pick these commits onto the julia repo onto either a backports-linearalgebra-1.11 branch or directly to backports-1.11.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

@nanosoldier runtests(vs=“release-1.10”)

@maleadt
Copy link
Member

maleadt commented Dec 13, 2024

@IanButterworth You typo'd the syntax, branches need to be specified using :: https://github.com/JuliaCI/Nanosoldier.jl?tab=readme-ov-file#trigger-syntax. In any case, it shouldn't be required here, as PkgEval uses the merge-base, which should be release-1.10 already.

@nanosoldier runtests()

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

IanButterworth commented Dec 13, 2024

Ah ok, but this is a 1.11 backports PR. I wanted to check it against 1.10 (because stuff in the blacklist hasn't been tested vs 1.10 because of that bug)

IanButterworth and others added 4 commits December 13, 2024 14:39
(cherry picked from commit 32ea18e)
Fixes #56782
Fix `exp(reinterpret(Float64, 0x7ffbb14880000000))` returning non-NaN
value. This should have minimal performance impact since it's already in
the fallback branch.

(cherry picked from commit 19e06d3)
@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

I don't see the Nanosoldier commit status here, which leads me to believe that either the webhook was never delivered, or that the Nanosoldier server didn't accept the job.

@DilumAluthge
Copy link
Member

@nanosoldier runtests()

@nanosoldier
Copy link
Collaborator

The package evaluation job you requested has completed - possible new issues were detected.
The full report is available.

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

@nanosoldier runtests(vs=":release-1.10")

@IanButterworth
Copy link
Member

IanButterworth commented Dec 14, 2024

@maleadt please cancel the duplicate run invoked here #56741 (comment) (or let me know how to if I can)

The latest request I did is the correct spec. We want to check against 1.10 state

@maleadt
Copy link
Member

maleadt commented Dec 14, 2024

please cancel the duplicate run invoked here #56741 (comment) (or let me know how to if I can)

It is currently not possible to cancel Nanosoldier invocations. Only thing I can to is restart the service at a strategic time. I'll check tomorrow when this job starts.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release Release management and versioning.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants