[new release] repr (4 packages) (0.8.0)

[samoht]

Dynamic type representations. Provides no stability guarantee

• Project page: https://github.com/mirage/repr
• Documentation: https://mirage.github.io/repr

CHANGES:

• Bump ppxlib to >=0.36.2 (5.2 ast bump mirage/repr#110, @patricoferris)
• Update to ocamlformat 0.28.1 (5.2 ast bump mirage/repr#110, @patricoferris)
• Fix short_hash signature for ppx_repr deriver (Ppx_repr: short_hash signature deriver fix mirage/repr#109, @mattiasdrp)

[patricoferris]

Thanks @samoht for getting this out the door!

Looking at the CI I see we will need:

• To add an upper-bound to ppx_repr for irmin, I can work on a quick PR over to irmin to fix the tests that are now broken (it is only a source-code printing issue, i.e. benign)
• repr-fuzz is failing during the lower-bound check I think, I don't quite understand how the lower-bound bit works to be honest as there is still a dependency on repr=0.8.0 which should keep the lower-bound tight for ppxlib but it seems this is not the case? A quick fix for CI would just be the also add ppxlib >= 0.36.2 to repr-fuzz.

[jmid]

• repr-fuzz is failing during the lower-bound check I think, I don't quite understand how the lower-bound bit works to be honest as there is still a dependency on repr=0.8.0 which should keep the lower-bound tight for ppxlib but it seems this is not the case? A quick fix for CI would just be the also add ppxlib >= 0.36.2 to repr-fuzz.

Indeed, there's a lower-bound failure.
I don't follow you on the tight lower bound for repr=0.8.0 though.
AFAICS, in https://opam.ci.ocaml.org/github/ocaml/opam-repository/commit/913ae0345c6304f0663d1c952f124a1bcdb7ee1d/variant/compilers,4.13,repr-fuzz.0.8.0,lower-bounds it keeps repr=0.8.0, but that one has no ppxlib dependency 🤔

Unrelated, would you consider adding x-maintenance-intent entries for the packages?
https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/blob/master/governance/policies/archiving.md

[patricoferris]

Ah, you're totally right @jmid! Sorry about that, I forgot most of the work I was doing was on ppx_repr (not repr). Indeed we will need a lower-bound of >= 0.36.2for repr-fuzz @samoht

[jmid]

I've now opened #28993 to address the ppx_irmin failures.

[jmid]

I restarted the CI now that #28993 has been merged.

[jmid]

CI is now down to just 3 opam-2.0 failures, so this is shaping up. 🎉

Would you consider adding x-maintenance-intent entries?
https://github.com/ocaml/opam-repository/blob/master/governance/policies/archiving.md