-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
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
WIP: Backports for Julia 1.5-beta-1 #35846
Conversation
* Update distributed-computing.md * Update doc/src/manual/distributed-computing.md Co-authored-by: Matt Bauman <mbauman@juliacomputing.com> Co-authored-by: Matt Bauman <mbauman@juliacomputing.com> (cherry picked from commit 6a9ced3)
@nanosoldier |
@nanosoldier |
Your benchmark job has completed - possible performance regressions were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @ararslan |
Some stuff to look at:
Likely due to the change to mean in Statistics
Likely due to string de-duplication in serialization
|
Your package evaluation job has completed - possible new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt |
I ran PkgEval with the wrong base branch so results here are not 100% accurate (although it should be pretty close because not much have happened on master since branching). |
Let's rerun to be sure (and stress-test some PkgEval changes): @nanosoldier |
Your package evaluation job has completed - possible new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt |
* Note that views no longer allocate in NEWS Co-authored-by: Viral B. Shah <ViralBShah@users.noreply.github.com>
The PkgEval result is extermely noisy now due to all changes in the RNG streams (#32208, #33721, #35078, #29240). This are the packages that failed the previous PkgEval but I filtered out all packages that failed in one of the PkgEvals for the RNG changes to at least be able start looking at stuff that are less likely to just be reliance on RNG streams in test. @nanosoldier |
For people pushing commits to this branch (@ViralBShah), please make sure the original PR has a backport label, that you use |
I merged a PR and only later realized it went onto this branch. It would be fine to revert it and do the right thing. However what is the right way to do this? Since this updated NEWS on master but here the update was to be made in HISTORY. |
If it is a commit that wasn't merged into master then just mergint he PR into here (like what was done) makes sense, I didn't notice that was the case. Could perhaps just add a note to the top post so that everything that gets put in is accounted for. |
Your package evaluation job has completed - possible new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt |
(cherry picked from commit 686052b)
(cherry picked from commit 67a851c)
(cherry picked from commit 8ef29e6)
Currently, the behavior of `Dict(pairs...)` and `Base.ImmutableDict(pairs...)` are different: julia> Dict(:a => 1, :a => 2)[:a] 2 julia> Base.ImmutableDict(:a => 1, :a => 2)[:a] 1 This PR fixes the latter to return 2. (cherry picked from commit fe59346)
(cherry picked from commit 43d8a28)
(cherry picked from commit a383d61)
There are so many PkgEval "regressions" here that I think it would be useful to merge this, and release a 1.5-beta to make it easier for the community in help testing / fixing packages. |
@nanosoldier |
Your package evaluation job has completed - possible new issues were detected. A full report can be found here. cc @maleadt |
…ease-1.5 WIP: Backports for Julia 1.5-RC1
Backported PRs:
v1.2.11+10
which enables-O3
optimisation #35979 - Bump Zlib BB release tov1.2.11+10
which enables-O3
optimisation