Bump pprint to 0.7.1

[tgodzik]

Pprint is currently released for 2.11/2.12/2.13 and 3

[kitbellew]

[error] java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: pprint.TPrint$.make(Lscala/Function1;)Lpprint/TPrint;
[error] 	at mdoc.internal.cli.Settings$.<clinit>(Settings.scala:303)
[error] 	at mdoc.Main$.process(Main.scala:24)

[tgodzik]

[error] java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: pprint.TPrint$.make(Lscala/Function1;)Lpprint/TPrint;
[error] 	at mdoc.internal.cli.Settings$.<clinit>(Settings.scala:303)
[error] 	at mdoc.Main$.process(Main.scala:24)

Yeah, it seems I've run into a bit of circular dependency problem. This is caused by scalameta/mdoc#603 which itself is blocked by this. Trying to exclude pprint from the docs project deps, but that doesn't seem to be working yet.

[tgodzik]

I removed the publishing of docusaurus for the time being, since it need the new mdoc.

[kitbellew]

@keynmol וואָס פֿאַר קיינמאָל? :)

[tgodzik]

@olafurpg do you estimate any issues here?

[tgodzik]

doing a release right now since this has popped up in multiple places. I do hope that Haoyi will stop with the breaking changes 😅

[bjaglin]

I ran into this from scalacenter/scalafix#1522 (comment): the breaking changes of pprint surface in metaconfig 0.9.16, which cannot cope with classes built against earlier metaconfig (i.e. pre com-lihaoyi/PPrint#72).

I assume the bumps were triggered by scalameta/mdoc#602. What about starting up a 0.10.x line so that mdoc can move forward, while maintaining a binary-compatible 0.9.x?

[tgodzik]

I ran into this from scalacenter/scalafix#1522 (comment): the breaking changes of pprint surface in metaconfig 0.9.16, which cannot cope with classes built against earlier metaconfig (i.e. pre com-lihaoyi/PPrint#72).

I assume the bumps were triggered by scalameta/mdoc#602. What about starting up a 0.10.x line so that mdoc can move forward, while maintaining a binary-compatible 0.9.x?

Should we actually inline pprint ourselves instead of using one that might change from time to time? This would avoid the issue I think?

[tgodzik]

I am trying that approach here #154

That should work correctly with older rules also. What do you think @bjaglin ?