workaround for compiler crash - no cloudkit for swift 6.3 at the moment

[doozMen]

workaround for compiler crash - no cloudkit for swift 6.3 at the moment

chore: Use local swift-perception fork with Swift 6.3 fixes

Points to ../swift-perception which has fixes for Swift 6.3-dev
compiler compatibility.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 noreply@anthropic.com

simplify type for compiler

refactor: Use GitHub forks for Swift 6.3 compatibility

Update all local path dependencies to use GitHub forks:

• doozMen/GRDB.swift (master) - synced with upstream v7.9.0
• doozMen/swift-sharing (main) - Swift 6.3 fixes for swift-perception
• doozMen/swift-structured-queries (main) - Swift 6.3 compiler crash guards

All CloudKit code guarded with !compiler(>=6.3) to avoid compiler crashes.
Tested successfully with Swift 6.3-dev snapshot.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 noreply@anthropic.com

[doozMen]

• ci: Add Swift version matrix for 6.0, 6.2, and 6.3 testing #10
• docs: Add Swift 6.3 compatibility limitations to README #9
• fix: Add compile-time warning for disabled CloudKit on Swift 6.3+ #8
• workaround for compiler crash - no cloudkit for swift 6.3 at the moment #7 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[claude]

Pull Request Review

Summary

This PR pins three forked dependencies to specific commit revisions instead of tracking branch heads. This is a good practice for build reproducibility and stability.

Code Quality and Best Practices

✅ Strengths:

• Build Reproducibility: Pinning to specific commit SHAs ensures all developers and CI builds use identical dependency versions, eliminating "works on my machine" issues related to dependency updates
• Clear Documentation: The inline comments (lines 28, 33, 36) explain why these forks exist, which is helpful for maintainability
• Consistent Pattern: All three fork dependencies now follow the same revision-pinning approach

⚠️ Considerations:

1. Maintenance Overhead: With pinned revisions, dependency updates require manual intervention. Consider:

   • Documenting the update process (which upstream commits these revisions correspond to)
   • Setting up automated checks or reminders to periodically review for updates
   • Adding commit messages or comments about what fixes each revision contains

2. Commit SHA Documentation: The PR description mentions these revisions contain Swift 6.3 fixes, but the Package.swift file does not indicate what specific Swift 6.3 issues each revision addresses

Potential Bugs or Issues

✅ No Critical Issues Detected

Minor Observations:

• The PR description mentions CloudKit guards, but this PR only changes Package.swift dependencies. If CloudKit guards were added in previous commits in the stack, ensure those changes are also reviewed
• Verify that these specific commit SHAs are stable and will not be force-pushed or deleted from the forked repositories

Performance Considerations

✅ No Performance Impact

• This change only affects dependency resolution at build time
• Runtime performance remains unchanged

Security Concerns

⚠️ Fork Dependency Security:

1. Trust Chain: Using personal forks (doozMen/*) instead of official repositories requires trust that:

   • The forks have not been compromised
   • The commits contain only the stated Swift 6.3 fixes
   • Future repository access remains available

2. Recommendations:

   • Document a plan to migrate back to upstream repositories once they support Swift 6.3
   • Consider contributing the Swift 6.3 fixes upstream via PRs
   • Monitor upstream repositories for Swift 6.3 support

Test Coverage

⚠️ Testing Considerations:

• The CI workflow tests with Xcode 16.4, which likely uses Swift 6.1 or 6.2, not Swift 6.3
• Recommendation: Verify the changes work with both current Swift version and Swift 6.3-dev snapshot

Additional Recommendations

1. Create GitHub Issues: Track the technical debt of using forks
2. Version Tagging: Consider creating version tags in your forks for better traceability
3. Dependency Update Process: Document how to check for updates and test new revisions

Verdict

✅ APPROVED with suggestions

The change is technically sound and improves build reproducibility. The main areas for improvement are documentation and planning for eventual migration back to upstream dependencies.

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code