-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 701
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
Removes a smattering of, apparent, dead code #10091
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
f009c2e
to
f06457e
Compare
f06457e
to
0659052
Compare
Rebasing to include cb1b60f |
Thanks @andreabedini! |
Do you happen to still have the changes to cabal-install-solver from the draft? They looked like safe changes. |
I do, along with some more that should be safe for |
@telser: ping! Any final touches from you before we start the review? Any final comments (or answers to comments)? |
Being more conservative at the beginning was a suggestion of someone at Zurihac, though now I'm struggling to recall exactly who that was. Don't want to assign credit/blame without being sure.
Thanks bringing this back to mind @Mikolaj! Per the above, I'm happy to go with this as-is or if the consensus to to be more aggressive upfront then amending to be somewhere between what is open and the draft is completely fine by me. |
@@ -44,7 +43,6 @@ versionTests = | |||
, tp "normaliseVersionRange involutive" prop_normalise_inv | |||
, tp "normaliseVersionRange equivalent" prop_normalise_equiv | |||
, tp "normaliseVersionRange caretequiv" prop_normalise_caret_equiv | |||
, tp "normaliseVersionRange model" prop_normalise_model |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why is this test being removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, this was removed because the underlying code was going away as was part of the larger f009c2e originally. I can clean this up in either direction by reinstating the test or by adding to the removals. Any thoughts on the direction?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe, to get this PR merged ASAP, before it bit-rots, let's re-add the test and leave the extra removal for future consideration?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I concur
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've restored this, thanks all!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall looks good. Sorry it took so long...
I have only one question above.
bump on the above question -- i would like to approve and merge but this should be resolved. |
Ping, ping? |
Thank you for the ping and apologies for taking so long to get back to this! I believe I've answered the question above, but need some guidance on direction that others are comfortable with. |
@telser Do you have all the guidance you need at this point? :) |
Using weeder to find unused definitions. There are a great many more, but this was an attempt to be relatively conservative in the removal.
0659052
to
68153bb
Compare
I believe so, thanks! Have restored the above mentioned test and rebased against master. |
Done during Zurihac:
Using weeder to find unused definitions. The roots, per weeder, should be all of the executables built from the top level directory. So all of the items removed here would appear to not be used in the execution or test paths of the codebase. There are a great many more items flagged by weeder, but this was an attempt to be relatively conservative in the removal.
This focuses the removal on internal facing items only. Which limits the gain, but also the scope.