Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Luite Stegeman]

Oh I don't want to block anything from being merged, if anything I'd like
to see it get added and actually use the new intrastructure. Unfortunately
it looks like I already need some hook changes to make GHCJSi work
reasonably well, without having to copy/paste huge loads of GHC code into
GHCJS, but it'd feel a bit silly to add hooks for something where a proper
solution is already in place. So I would like to try to update GHCJS to use
this, if there's a good chance that this gets merged.

I just hope that I have enough time to do all of this and verify that
things work before the freeze. It's a bit unfortunate that I can only be
really sure when I actually have things running, and there's always a lot
of work involved in updating GHCJS and its dependencies to work with GHC
HEAD, with many big changes always landing right before the freeze.

cheers,

Luite

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:50 PM Simon Marlow  wrote:

> On 03/12/2015 13:50, Ben Gamari wrote:
> > Luite Stegeman  writes:
> >
> >> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
> >> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
> >> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some
> restructuring of
> >> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is
> enough
> >> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
> >> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without
> adding a
> >> new hook.
> >>
> > Simon, what do you think about this?
> >
> > I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
> > Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.
>
> It doesn't have to go in, but I think it would be nice.  I'd like to
> have it out for at least one major release in a disabled-by-default
> state so that we can experiment with it.  But as far as my particular
> goals for this feature are concerned, I'll backport the patch to 7.10
> and use it in our local GHC build at Facebook regardless.
>
> Luite - the hooks you use are still intact, so I don't think you have to
> do any major restructuring in GHCJS until you're ready.  What I've
> implemented will almost certainly need work to be usable or shareable
> with GHCJS, and it's not clear to me exactly what the changes will look
> like, but for the time being I thought the changes should not impact
> GHCJS's implementation of TH & GHCi.  I could be wrong though, if so
> please let me know how it breaks you.
>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>
> >> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?
> >>
> > We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
> > depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
> > said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
> > think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.
> >
> > Austin, what do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - Ben
> >
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Alan & Kim Zimmerman]

Well, its a feature freeze, not a release, so I imagine bugs can still
be fixed as they come up.

Alan

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Luite Stegeman  wrote:
> Oh I don't want to block anything from being merged, if anything I'd like to
> see it get added and actually use the new intrastructure. Unfortunately it
> looks like I already need some hook changes to make GHCJSi work reasonably
> well, without having to copy/paste huge loads of GHC code into GHCJS, but
> it'd feel a bit silly to add hooks for something where a proper solution is
> already in place. So I would like to try to update GHCJS to use this, if
> there's a good chance that this gets merged.
>
> I just hope that I have enough time to do all of this and verify that things
> work before the freeze. It's a bit unfortunate that I can only be really
> sure when I actually have things running, and there's always a lot of work
> involved in updating GHCJS and its dependencies to work with GHC HEAD, with
> many big changes always landing right before the freeze.
>
> cheers,
>
> Luite
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:50 PM Simon Marlow  wrote:
>>
>> On 03/12/2015 13:50, Ben Gamari wrote:
>> > Luite Stegeman  writes:
>> >
>> >> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm
>> >> still
>> >> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I
>> >> haven't
>> >> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some
>> >> restructuring of
>> >> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is
>> >> enough
>> >> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
>> >> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without
>> >> adding a
>> >> new hook.
>> >>
>> > Simon, what do you think about this?
>> >
>> > I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
>> > Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.
>>
>> It doesn't have to go in, but I think it would be nice.  I'd like to
>> have it out for at least one major release in a disabled-by-default
>> state so that we can experiment with it.  But as far as my particular
>> goals for this feature are concerned, I'll backport the patch to 7.10
>> and use it in our local GHC build at Facebook regardless.
>>
>> Luite - the hooks you use are still intact, so I don't think you have to
>> do any major restructuring in GHCJS until you're ready.  What I've
>> implemented will almost certainly need work to be usable or shareable
>> with GHCJS, and it's not clear to me exactly what the changes will look
>> like, but for the time being I thought the changes should not impact
>> GHCJS's implementation of TH & GHCi.  I could be wrong though, if so
>> please let me know how it breaks you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Simon
>>
>> >> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?
>> >>
>> > We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
>> > depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
>> > said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
>> > think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.
>> >
>> > Austin, what do you think?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > - Ben
>> >
>
>
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Luite Stegeman]

Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of
GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough
to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a
new hook.

What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?

cheers,

Luite

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:34 PM Ben Gamari  wrote:

> tl;dr: feature freeze is imminent; get any remaining patches in ASAP.
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> The GHC 8.0 release cycle is quickly approaching its conclusion. While
> there are a few patches still outstanding (most notably the no-kinds
> branch to which we owe the major version number bump), most everything
> else has at this point been merged.
>
> If you are still sitting on a patch then please post it for review as
> soon as possible. We will enter a formal feature freeze within the next
> week. If things go according to plan we will have be able to fork the
> 8.0 branch shortly thereafter and have a release candidate within two
> weeks.
>
> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this release!
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Ben Gamari]

Luite Stegeman  writes:

> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of
> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough
> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a
> new hook.
>
Simon, what do you think about this?

I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.

> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?
>
We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.

Austin, what do you think?

Cheers,

- Ben


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Alan & Kim Zimmerman]

My 2c, I would love to see the remote GHCi patch land for 8.0.

It is a  big change though.

Alan

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Austin Seipp  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Ben Gamari  wrote:
>> Luite Stegeman  writes:
>>
>>> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
>>> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
>>> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of
>>> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough
>>> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
>>> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a
>>> new hook.
>>>
>> Simon, what do you think about this?
>>
>> I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
>> Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.
>
> I think this is one we're best off leaving in HEAD. It's a very large
> change, and I'm a bit scared of bringing it in right at the finish
> line, so to speak. I think it might be best to just get it in sometime
> after the branch IMO...
>
>>> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?
>>>
>> We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
>> depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
>> said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
>> think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.
>>
>> Austin, what do you think?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> - Ben
>>
>> ___
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs@haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>>
>
> Hrm. If possible I would like to avoid any breaking changes past the
> first RC, which has normally been my policy... Generally it's just
> easier for everyone this way and people typically don't like too many
> mid-flight changes, once things are in RC-mode.
>
> That said, if it's something game-breaking for, say, GHCJS, I'd be
> open to it. But we should try to fix it ASAP, not in the middle of
> February. So it would be best if we could find out what hooks or
> tweaks we needed Very Soon.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
> Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

RE: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Ben Gamari]

Simon Peyton Jones  writes:

> |  HEAD is sadly currently broken for unrelated reasons which I am
> |  working on resolving at the moment.  I'll send a message to ghc-devs
> |  when I've pushed my fix.
>
> Does that mean I should not pull for now?  Which means I can't push either.
>
No, feel free to pull and push.

The problem is that Harbormaster builds are failing to validate due to
changes in haddock allocations leading to failures of testsuite stat
tests [1]. Sadly I'm unable to reproduce this locally but I just pushed
what I believe should be a fix.

Sadly now we need to work through the fall-out from George's patch.

Cheers,

- Ben

[1] https://phabricator.haskell.org/harbormaster/build/8442/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

RE: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Simon Peyton Jones]

|  HEAD is sadly currently broken for unrelated reasons which I am
|  working on resolving at the moment.  I'll send a message to ghc-devs
|  when I've pushed my fix.

Does that mean I should not pull for now?  Which means I can't push either.

Simon

___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Austin Seipp]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Ben Gamari  wrote:
> Luite Stegeman  writes:
>
>> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
>> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
>> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of
>> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough
>> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
>> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a
>> new hook.
>>
> Simon, what do you think about this?
>
> I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
> Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.

I think this is one we're best off leaving in HEAD. It's a very large
change, and I'm a bit scared of bringing it in right at the finish
line, so to speak. I think it might be best to just get it in sometime
after the branch IMO...

>> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?
>>
> We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
> depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
> said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
> think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.
>
> Austin, what do you think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ben
>
> ___
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>

Hrm. If possible I would like to avoid any breaking changes past the
first RC, which has normally been my policy... Generally it's just
easier for everyone this way and people typically don't like too many
mid-flight changes, once things are in RC-mode.

That said, if it's something game-breaking for, say, GHCJS, I'd be
open to it. But we should try to fix it ASAP, not in the middle of
February. So it would be best if we could find out what hooks or
tweaks we needed Very Soon.

-- 
Regards,

Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, http://www.well-typed.com/
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Edward Z. Yang]

Based on my cursory look at the patch, I think it's unlikely to
break existing functionality in subtle ways.  So I'm OK with
trying to ship it in 8.0

Edward

Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of 2015-12-03 09:50:37 -0800:
> On 03/12/2015 13:50, Ben Gamari wrote:
> > Luite Stegeman  writes:
> >
> >> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
> >> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
> >> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of
> >> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough
> >> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
> >> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a
> >> new hook.
> >>
> > Simon, what do you think about this?
> >
> > I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
> > Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.
> 
> It doesn't have to go in, but I think it would be nice.  I'd like to 
> have it out for at least one major release in a disabled-by-default 
> state so that we can experiment with it.  But as far as my particular 
> goals for this feature are concerned, I'll backport the patch to 7.10 
> and use it in our local GHC build at Facebook regardless.
> 
> Luite - the hooks you use are still intact, so I don't think you have to 
> do any major restructuring in GHCJS until you're ready.  What I've 
> implemented will almost certainly need work to be usable or shareable 
> with GHCJS, and it's not clear to me exactly what the changes will look 
> like, but for the time being I thought the changes should not impact 
> GHCJS's implementation of TH & GHCi.  I could be wrong though, if so 
> please let me know how it breaks you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Simon
> 
> >> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?
> >>
> > We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
> > depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
> > said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
> > think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.
> >
> > Austin, what do you think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > - Ben
> >
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

Re: The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Simon Marlow]

On 03/12/2015 13:50, Ben Gamari wrote:

Luite Stegeman  writes:


Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of
GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough
to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a
new hook.


Simon, what do you think about this?

I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.


It doesn't have to go in, but I think it would be nice.  I'd like to 
have it out for at least one major release in a disabled-by-default 
state so that we can experiment with it.  But as far as my particular 
goals for this feature are concerned, I'll backport the patch to 7.10 
and use it in our local GHC build at Facebook regardless.


Luite - the hooks you use are still intact, so I don't think you have to 
do any major restructuring in GHCJS until you're ready.  What I've 
implemented will almost certainly need work to be usable or shareable 
with GHCJS, and it's not clear to me exactly what the changes will look 
like, but for the time being I thought the changes should not impact 
GHCJS's implementation of TH & GHCi.  I could be wrong though, if so 
please let me know how it breaks you.


Cheers,
Simon


What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?


We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.

Austin, what do you think?

Cheers,

- Ben


___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs

The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

[Ben Gamari]

tl;dr: feature freeze is imminent; get any remaining patches in ASAP.


Hello all,

The GHC 8.0 release cycle is quickly approaching its conclusion. While
there are a few patches still outstanding (most notably the no-kinds
branch to which we owe the major version number bump), most everything
else has at this point been merged.

If you are still sitting on a patch then please post it for review as
soon as possible. We will enter a formal feature freeze within the next
week. If things go according to plan we will have be able to fork the
8.0 branch shortly thereafter and have a release candidate within two
weeks.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this release!

Cheers,

- Ben


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs