Allow Table(None)

[austinweisgrau]

This change allows Table(None) to work, equivalent to Table(). This is reasonable behavior and also simplifies the implementation to avoid the necessity of a sentinal as a default argument.

This may be a breaking change if code depends on Table(None) raising a ValueError.

[austinweisgrau]

Just one commit here, which will be more clear once major-release is brought up to date. no urgency on my end there.

[Jason94]

I think this change makes sense, and I took a look at the operative commit (62ceca6) and it looks good to me.

[shaunagm]

Sorry about the delay - there's a merge conflict in major-release so it can't be trivially merged back into main. I've asked Willy and Kasia to look into it, and hopefully we'll have that handled (and this PR merged) within the week.

[shaunagm]

Happy to merge this, but I'm not sure how to resolve the merge conflicts or handle the large number of others files included in this PR. Possibly worth rebasing or just opening a fresh PR with the same changes?

[austinweisgrau]

The major release branch needs to be hard reset to match main. Alternatively, we start major release branches that are particular to the version - so we could have a major-release-4 branch

…

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024, 1:33 PM Shauna Gordon-McKeon ***@***.***> wrote: Happy to merge this, but I'm not sure how to resolve the merge conflicts or handle the large number of others files included in this PR. Possibly worth rebasing or just opening a fresh PR with the same changes? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#984 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO74QHQEVH4LSPKNZRJLMYDZN24X5AVCNFSM6AAAAABC25V3PGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENBWGI2TSNZZHE> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[shaunagm]

Worth talking about switching our process in the next contributor meeting (two weeks from Thursday). In the meantime I can reset major-release.

[shaunagm]

Actually switching to using a schema like major-release-4 was logistically easier. But unfortunately there's still a few merge conflicts. But they should be easy to resolve. (If the answer is to discard all conflicting changes or accept all conflicting changes, I can resolve them and merge the PR, but I don't want to assume that's the case.)