Added backward compatibility for react/promise #12188
Conversation
|
@naderman @Seldaek I would like to understand your point of view on this PR changes, As in current composer version 2.8.x, Removed Can you share your point of view on this? |
|
I'm not sure about this one. react/promise 3.x is not a very difficult migration, and requiring composer/composer is generally frowned upon, so why should we support 2.x still? What's the exact use case you're solving? |
@Seldaek you may right react/promise 3.x is not a very difficult migration but we want to use composer:2.8 in adobe commerce but some other packages are not allowing to update the latest version of composer e.g. package As a result, these interdependent packages create a conflict, blocking the upgrade to the latest Composer version. |
|
And have you reached out to ezimuel to see if he can bump his promise requirement to allow v3? Because that'd be a better fix imo (moving forward) |
@Seldaek Yes, i tried to reach him but did not get any update ezimuel/ringphp#12 |
|
Hi @Seldaek As this PR ezimuel/ringphp#12 is closed from maintainer side. Are we planning to address the backward compatibility issue regarding react/promise:2.x? It may be beneficial to consider removing support for react/promise:2.x in a future major version of Composer. This would ensure that Composer 2.8.x (and later versions) can be used without introducing breaking changes for users who rely on the current version of react/promise. Looking forward to feedback and suggestions on this approach. |
|
Well if ringphp is deprecated and abandoned, I'd then go talk to opensearch-project/opensearch-php about this because they should not use it anymore. But yes I'll keep this open in the meantime and take a look whether I can reintroduce the promise v2 requirement or not, I don't quite recall why I removed it. |
|
@Seldaek opensearch-php is aware of it. And there is a WIP about removing its usage, but it basically involves rewriting the whole library, so it will take time to complete the work. |
|
Ok it seems to run fine with 2.x, so I guess we can do this change. |
No description provided.