Geoff's reasoning seems quite sound. +1 for February release. On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Geoffrey Mainland <mainl...@apeiron.net> wrote:
> 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 > _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users