Skip to content

Replace bespoke availability system #232

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 31, 2025
Merged

Conversation

rauhul
Copy link
Contributor

@rauhul rauhul commented Jun 7, 2025

Removes the script based availability system with the experimental availability macro feature.

Copy link
Contributor

@glessard glessard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice! Let's decide what to do about the minor versions in the availability array…

@glessard
Copy link
Contributor

glessard commented Jun 7, 2025

@swift-ci please test

@milseman
Copy link
Contributor

What do we need to do to get this merged?

@rauhul rauhul force-pushed the availability-macros branch from e2ea4c5 to c38bfa1 Compare July 29, 2025 22:53
@rauhul rauhul marked this pull request as ready for review July 29, 2025 22:54
@rauhul rauhul requested review from lorentey and milseman as code owners July 29, 2025 22:54
Removes the script based availability system with the experimental
availability macro feature.
@rauhul rauhul force-pushed the availability-macros branch from f445698 to 9a15308 Compare July 30, 2025 15:40
@glessard glessard changed the base branch from main to release/1.6.0 July 30, 2025 23:56
@glessard
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @rauhul!

@glessard glessard merged commit 9226c72 into release/1.6.0 Jul 31, 2025
64 checks passed
@glessard glessard deleted the availability-macros branch July 31, 2025 00:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants