In practice the versions of GHC that are widely used are those that are included in the platform. Maybe we should coordinate with their next release? They are targeting a May 6 release, and the release process is starting March 4, so it sounds like the original GHC release plan (February release) would be a good fit for the platform as it would allow library writers to catch up and ensure that STABLE was tested enough for inclusion in the platform. It would be a shame to miss the platform release.
Geoff On 02/07/2013 08:25 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote: > Dear GHC users, > > * > > * > > *Carter*: Will this RTS update make it into ghc 7.8 update thats coming > up in the next monthish? > > *Andreas*: We are almost there - we are now trying to sort out a problem > on mac os x. It would be helpful to know if there is a cutoff date for > getting things into 7.8. > > > > Simon, Ian, and I have just been discussing 7.8, and would be interested > in what you guys think. > > > At ICFP we speculated that we’d make a release of GHC soon after > Christmas to embody tons of stuff that has been included since 7.6, > specifically: > > · major improvements in DPH (vectorisation avoidance, new > vectoriser) > > · type holes > > · rebindable list syntax > > · major changes to the type inference engine > > · type level natural numbers > > · overlapping type families > > · the new code generator > > · support for vector (SSE/AVX) instructions > > > > Whenever it comes it would definitely be great to include Andreas & > friends’ work: > > · Scheduler changes to the RTS to improve latency > > > > The original major reason for proposing a post-Xmas release was to get > DPH in a working state out into the wild. However, making a proper > release imposes costs on everyone else. Library authors have to scurry > around to make their libraries work, etc. Some of the new stuff hasn’t > been in HEAD for that long, and hence has not been very thoroughly > tested. (But of course making a release unleashes a huge wave of > testing that doesn’t happen otherwise.) > > > > So another alternative is to leave it all as HEAD, and wait another few > months before making a release. You can still use all the new stuff by > compiling HEAD, or grabbing a snapshot distribution. And it makes it > hard for the Haskell platform if GHC moves too fast. Many people are > still on 7.4. > > > > There seem to be pros and cons each way. I don’t have a strong > opinion. If you have a view, let us know. > > > > Simon _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
