We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
At first sight, regarding the Docker-Rocq part:
one would need to add in the docker-action.yml.mustache something like:
docker-action.yml.mustache
{{# tested_rocq_opam_versions }} - '{{ repo }}{{^ repo }}rocq/rocq-prover{{/ repo }}:{{ version }}' {{/ tested_rocq_opam_versions }}
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
So IIUC, we would have a tested_coq_opam_version and a tested_rocq_opam_version?
tested_coq_opam_version
tested_rocq_opam_version
Sorry, something went wrong.
Yes, I think it makes sense to have both, since projects can be compatible with both, e.g., Coq 8.20 and Rocq 9.0.
It's already now possible to add rocq images under the tested_coq_opam_version, but this proposed addition would allow writing things like:
rocq
tested_rocq_opam_versions: - version: '9.0'
which doesn't require knowledge about the exact Docker Hub repo.
@erikmd feel free to make a PR and we can very likely merge it right away.
No branches or pull requests
At first sight, regarding the Docker-Rocq part:
one would need to add in the
docker-action.yml.mustache
something like:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: