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

Fix #2396 by removing redundant zero in IsNonAssociativeRing #2410

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lexvanderstoep
Copy link
Contributor

The zero field in the IsNonAssociativeRing was redundant, and could be replaced with a proof based on the other properties.

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

jamesmckinna commented Jun 16, 2024

Thanks for the speedy follow-up on the issue... but the failing CI tests show that replacing the (redundant) explicit field with a definition/manifest field is breaking behaviour... so we need to tread a bit more carefully!

Issues:

  • knock-on consequences: need to update uses/definitions to accommodate the change
  • breaking changes are generally being punted to v3.0, rather than any v2.x minor version
  • needs CHANGELOG (But in view of the version issue, this can, and probably should, wait for the time being...)

@lexvanderstoep
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for reviewing this so quickly! I was about to mark the PR as a draft to fix the usage of IsNonAssociativeRing, but you beat me to it.

About the change being breaking and only included in v3.0, makes sense. What is the way forward? Do we leave the MR until we're ready to release the next major version of the library?

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

I'd definitely go with DRAFT for the time being...
I could well imagine some of the other maintainers weighing in on how best to take this forward... and when. But we're a bit more focused on clearing the v2.1 milestone, so this one will definitely be on the back burner for a bit, I think.

@lexvanderstoep
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sounds like a plan!

@lexvanderstoep lexvanderstoep marked this pull request as draft June 16, 2024 20:30
Copy link
Contributor

@JacquesCarette JacquesCarette left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Approving these changes "on their own" but agree with @jamesmckinna about the breaking aspects.

The zero field in the IsNonAssociativeRing was redundant, and could
be replaced with a proof based on the other properties.
Now that we've replaced the field `zero` with a definition, we
need to update the usages of `IsNonAssociativeRing`.
@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

Re: the discussion on #2396 I'd be tempted to take this off DRAFT status now, as it's 'ready to go' (or at least 'ready to review' ;-))... the only problem being that between the next release and v3.0 (hopefully sooner rather than later, but we'll see in the new year), there'll be an almighty CHANGELOG merge conflict, but should be easy to resolve in place then.

For the removal of the redundant `zero` parameter in `IsNonAssociativeRing`.
@lexvanderstoep lexvanderstoep marked this pull request as ready for review December 21, 2024 15:27
@lexvanderstoep
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jamesmckinna Updated the PR to be 'ready to go'. I'll tackle the almighty CHANGELOG merge conflict when the time comes...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants