On 2014-06-09 at 18:08:20 +0200, git-4Dsf34iY/nkouohngz6...@public.gmane.org
wrote:
[...]
> +
> +
> +The libraries haskeline,
> +xhtml, terminfo,
> +transformers, and
> +haskeline are now exported and
> +registered in t
On 12/03/14 15:04, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> Friends
> The status of the GHC 7.8 release is here
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status/GHC-7.8/RC2.
> Alas we are currently stalled on #8870, #8834: we are getting seg-faults on
> Windows. (For example, on my laptop, the
-bisecting to the fault, would
be a huge step forward. I don't think you'd need to know Cmm necessarily
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Kyra
| Sent: 12 March 2014 15:36
| To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: GHC
I'll try to reproduce it and see if I can pin it down..
Niklas
- Ursprungligt meddelande -
Från: "Simon Peyton Jones"
Skickat: 2014-03-12 16:05
Till: "ghc-devs@haskell.org"
Ämne: GHC 7.8 release
Friends
The status of the GHC 7.8 release is here
https:/
On 12.03.2014 19:04, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
Alas we are currently stalled on #8870, #8834: we are getting
seg-faults on Windows. (For example, on my laptop, the stage2 compiler
seg-faults when compiling some (but not all) files. Although few
people develop GHC on Windows, many people **use**
I can provide help on #8834 because I know what was done in the commit that
introduced the bug.
But I don't have Windows so I'm afraid we still need someone to do the actual
work.
Janek
Dnia środa, 12 marca 2014, Simon Peyton Jones napisał:
> Friends
> The status of the GH
Friends
The status of the GHC 7.8 release is here
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status/GHC-7.8/RC2.
Alas we are currently stalled on #8870, #8834: we are getting seg-faults on
Windows. (For example, on my laptop, the stage2 compiler seg-faults when
compiling some (but not all) files
I did get it. And I certainly appreciate that there's a lot of work
happening. I just didn't see any answers to my date-related questions in it.
Thanks.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Austin Seipp wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I apologize if you didn't get the notice I sent last week on the updat
What are ways for other folks to help? (If possible)
On Friday, November 15, 2013, Austin Seipp wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> I apologize if you didn't get the notice I sent last week on the update.
>
> Right now I am endlessly battling windows, and while I actually DO
> have a dynamic GHC working for
Hi Nicolas,
I apologize if you didn't get the notice I sent last week on the update.
Right now I am endlessly battling windows, and while I actually DO
have a dynamic GHC working for windows with the DLL split (#5987,) it
is segfaulting in the stage2 compiler when compiling the 'time'
library, an
Unless I missed an RC announcement, I'm pretty sure we're running a little
behind the schedule from that email.
Deciders, has the Nov 25 target slid back? Any new estimates, if so?
Thanks much.
On Nov 14, 2013 9:40 PM, "Andreas Voellmy"
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Andreas V
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Andreas Voellmy wrote:
> I added a note about the parallel IO manager status to
> https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status/GHC-7.8. There are two
> issues I'd still like to resolve. Is there a target date for the release?
>
Oh, I just noticed
http://permali
I added a note about the parallel IO manager status to
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status/GHC-7.8. There are two issues
I'd still like to resolve. Is there a target date for the release?
-Andi
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Andreas Voellmy
wrote:
> Yes, the parallel IO manager is n
Yes, the parallel IO manager is new in 7.8. Thanks for reminding me of that
excessive system time issue. That's been nagging me for a while. Hopefully
I can find some time in the coming days to look at this again.
-Andi
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Ryan Newton wrote:
> By the way, the para
By the way, the parallel IO manager is also new in 7.8 right? I'm not sure
but I think it may have something to do with the excessive system time bug
I just filed:
http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8224
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskel
Thank you Ryan!
I'll be getting my ARMv7 build machine back online today, hopefully.
Jens Peterson reported he had a working ARMv7 build to me today from
HEAD, which is good news.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Ryan Newton wrote:
> Thanks for the reminder. Wiki is updated; atomics branch is m
@gmail.com); David Luposchainsky; ghc-
| d...@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release status
|
|
| On 4 Sep 2013, at 15:52, Simon Peyton-Jones
| wrote:
|
| > Edsko/Thomas/Luite: if you want anything for 7.8 it'll have to be
| jolly soon. At the moment I don't even know the moti
Friends
The 7.8 release is imminent. This email is to ask abou the status of your
contributions. In each case could you update the wiki with the current state
of play, and your intentions, including dates. That is, don't put your reply
in email: it on the status page below; though by all mean
Thanks for the reminder. Wiki is updated; atomics branch is merged. The
only further work I plan to do in the near term is add additional tests.
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Friends
>
> The 7.8 release is imminent. This email is to ask abou the status of you
Indeed. There's a few straggling things but overall we're in feature
freeze overall right now, right?
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan
> >
> wrote:
> > One of the factors that's blocking my ability to build Hackage packages
>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> One of the factors that's blocking my ability to build Hackage packages is
> that Hackage does not contain versions of a number of bundled-with-GHC
> packages that have versions matching the versions shipping with HEAD. It
> would unblock t
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Austin Seipp wrote:
> - Nov 1st: Cut branch, and I plan on making a 7.8 RC1 available the
> same day, for several platforms.
>
Hi, Austin -
Thanks for writing this up.
One of the factors that's blocking my ability to build Hackage packages is
that Hackage does
Friends,
After talking with Simon yesterday, we have some idea of how the
release will go. As I'm sure you're aware, the release is winding down
rather quickly, and it will be a fantastic one hopefully :)
Now that all the features have landed, we're going into bugfixing
mode. The schedule is, rou
which tries to document some these loops too.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Edsko de Vries [mailto:edskodevr...@gmail.com]
| Sent: 11 September 2013 15:33
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: Luite Stegeman; ghc-devs; Edsko de Vries
| Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release status
|
| Hi all,
|
|
t clear to me why exactly those are the right places. But I suppose
> they are simply driven by what has been needed.
>
>
>
> Anyway if you two are happy (no one else seems to mind either way) then go
> ahead.
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> From: L
te Stegeman [mailto:stege...@gmail.com]
Sent: 10 September 2013 08:37
To: Edsko de Vries
Cc: Simon Peyton-Jones; ghc-devs; Edsko de Vries
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release status
Edsko has done some work of rearranging imports in DynFlags to make the DLL
split work, and I've implemented the hoo
interested parties, work together to evolve a design that
> everyone
> > is happy with.
> >
> >
> >
> > Does that sound ok?
> >
> >
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Luite Stegeman [mailto:stege...@gmail.com]
> &g
Edsko de Vries; ghc-devs
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release status
* Why aren't you using Data.Dynamic for the hook things? You are
precisely doing dynamic typing after all. (Moreover I want to change
Data.Dynamic so that it says
data Dynamic where
Dyn :: Typeable a =>
ion. And then you two, with Thomas
> and other interested parties, work together to evolve a design that everyone
> is happy with.
>
>
>
> Does that sound ok?
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> From: Luite Stegeman [mailto:stege...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 07 September 2013 22:
s that sound ok?
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Luite Stegeman [mailto:stege...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 07 September 2013 22:04
>> To: Simon Peyton-Jones
>> Cc: Thomas Schilling; Edsko de Vries; ghc-devs
>>
>>
>> Subjec
· **Why aren’t you using Data.Dynamic for the hook things? You are
precisely doing dynamic typing after all. (Moreover I want to change
Data.Dynamic so that it says
> data Dynamic where
> Dyn :: Typeable a => a -> Dynamic
> and you want to take advantage of this.
>
Ah the
05 September 2013 02:10
To: Thomas Schilling
Cc: Simon Peyton-Jones; Edsko de Vries; ghc-devs
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release status
I've updated the wiki page, expanding the descriptions and adding code from the
actual implementation: http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Ghc/Hooks
An demo progr
ix at the end.
· Update documentation in the user manual
· Make sure you have tests in the testsuite
How fast can you do that?
Simon
From: Trevor Elliott [mailto:awesomelyawes...@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 September 2013 18:30
To: Iavor Diatchki; Simon Peyton-Jones
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 re
gt; | To: Simon Peyton-Jones; Luite Stegeman
>> > | Cc: Nicolas Frisby; "Pedro Magalhães (drei...@gmail.com)"; Richard
>> > | Eisenberg (e...@cis.upenn.edu); Geoffrey Mainland
>> > | (mainl...@cs.drexel.edu); Iavor Diatchki; Austin Seipp; Edsko de
>> Vries;
>&
@cis.upenn.edu); Geoffrey Mainland
> > | (mainl...@cs.drexel.edu); Iavor Diatchki; Austin Seipp; Edsko de
> Vries;
> > | Ryan Newton (rrnew...@gmail.com); David Luposchainsky; ghc-
> > | d...@haskell.org
> > | Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release status
> > |
> > |
nsky; ghc-
> | d...@haskell.org
> | Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release status
> |
> |
> | On 4 Sep 2013, at 15:52, Simon Peyton-Jones
> | wrote:
> |
> | > Edsko/Thomas/Luite: if you want anything for 7.8 it'll have to be
> | jolly soon. At the moment I don't e
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:21:26PM -0400, Ben Gamari wrote:
>
> what is the plan for
> 7.8? Will it admit API breakage? Should we establish a timeframe for getting
> work in before a formal release candidate is cut?
7.8 will be released as shortly after ICFP as we can. It will allow API
changes.
Recently I tried to parse the flurry of activity in the "GHC 7.8
release?" thread which started in early February[1]. This was quite a
long thread with a number of different facets. To avoid losing points in
the noise, I thought it might be useful to summarize the major points
(please
Somebody claiming to be Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
* Simon Marlow [2013-02-13 09:00:15+]
It's feasible to split base, but to a first approximation what you
end up with is base renamed to ghc-base, and then the new base
contains just stub modules that re-export stuff from ghc-base.
It would be
ge-
| From: ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On
| Behalf Of Ian Lynagh
| Sent: 13 February 2013 13:58
| To: Simon Marlow
| Cc: wren ng thornton; glasgow-haskell-users; ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
|
| On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:00:15
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:00:15AM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> I believe Ian has done some experiments with splitting base further,
> so he might have more to add here.
There are some sensible chunks that can be pulled out, e.g. Foreign.*
can be pulled out into a separate package fairly easily
* Simon Marlow [2013-02-13 09:00:15+]
> It's feasible to split base, but to a first approximation what you
> end up with is base renamed to ghc-base, and then the new base
> contains just stub modules that re-export stuff from ghc-base.
It would be great to have a portable base, without any G
On 13/02/13 07:06, wren ng thornton wrote:
On 2/12/13 3:37 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
One reason for the major version bumps is that base is a big
conglomeration of modules, ranging from those that hardly ever change
(Prelude) to those that change frequently (GHC.*). For example, the new
IO manager
> Thanks for sharing! My perspective is of course as a user. I don't think
> I've ever run into a case where the compiler broken a previous work e.g.
> C++ program. On the other hand I have to make a release of most of the
> libraries I maintain with every GHC release (to bump cabal version
> cons
On 02/12/2013 09:37 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 11/02/13 23:03, Johan Tibell wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
> Of course we do also make well-intentioned changes to libraries, via the
> library proposal process, and some of these break APIs. But it wouldn't
> do any harm to batch these up and defer them until t
On 11/02/13 23:03, Johan Tibell wrote:
Hi,
I think reducing breakages is not necessarily, and maybe not even
primarily, an issue of releases. It's more about realizing that the cost
of breaking things (e.g. changing library APIs) has gone up as the
Haskell community and ecosystem has grown. We n
Simon Peyton-Jones :
> | > You may ask what use is a GHC release that doesn't cause a wave of
> updates?
> | And hence that doesn't work with at least some libraries. Well, it's a
> very useful
> | forcing function to get new features actually out and tested.
> |
> | But the way you test n
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> I have some experience with GCC releases -- having served as a GCC
>> Release Manager for several years. In fact, the release scheme we
>> currently
>> have has gone through sev
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <
g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> I have some experience with GCC releases -- having served as a GCC
> Release Manager for several years. In fact, the release scheme we currently
> have has gone through several iterations -- usually after m
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think reducing breakages is not necessarily, and maybe not even primarily,
> an issue of releases. It's more about realizing that the cost of breaking
> things (e.g. changing library APIs) has gone up as the Haskell community and
> e
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:03:25 -0800 Johan Tibell
wrote:
> Many platforms (e.g. Java and Python) rarely, if ever,
> make breaking changes. If you look at compiler projects (e.g. LLVM
> and GCC) you never see intentional breakages, even in major
> releases*.
Those are very mature platforms, hundred
Hi,
I think reducing breakages is not necessarily, and maybe not even
primarily, an issue of releases. It's more about realizing that the cost of
breaking things (e.g. changing library APIs) has gone up as the Haskell
community and ecosystem has grown. We need to be conscious of that and
carefully
ailto:allber...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 11 February 2013 01:15
> *To:* Simon Peyton-Jones
> *Cc:* Simon Marlow; Mark Lentczner; Manuel M T Chakravarty;
> kosti...@gmail.com; glasgow-haskell-users; ghc-devs@haskell.org; Edsko de
> Vries
>
> *Subject:* Re: GHC 7.8 release?
>
> **
lbery [mailto:allber...@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 February 2013 01:15
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: Simon Marlow; Mark Lentczner; Manuel M T Chakravarty; kosti...@gmail.com;
glasgow-haskell-users; ghc-devs@haskell.org; Edsko de Vries
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Simon P
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> | > You may ask what use is a GHC release that doesn't cause a wave of
> updates?
> | And hence that doesn't work with at least some libraries. Well, it's a
> very useful
> | forcing function to get new features actually out and te
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:09:56AM +0800, John Lato wrote:
>
> What I would like to see are more patch-level bugfix releases. I suspect
> the reason we don't have more is that making a release is a lot of work.
> So, Ian, what needs to happen to make more frequent patch releases
> feasible?
Wel
While I'm notionally in favor of decoupling API-breaking changes from
non-API breaking changes, there are two major difficulties: GHC.Prim and
Template Haskell. Should a non-API-breaking change mean that GHC.Prim is
immutable? If so, this greatly restricts GHC's development. If not, it
means that
Well said. Having a more aggressive release cycle is another interesting
perspective.
On Feb 10, 2013 6:21 PM, "Gabriel Dos Reis"
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:02:18PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> You may ask what use is
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:02:18PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>>
>> You may ask what use is a GHC release that doesn't cause a wave of updates?
>> And hence that doesn't work with at least some libraries. Well, it's a very
>> useful fo
Yes, exactly this.
A release where the versions of base, and all other baked in libraries are
only minor version bumps and where breaking changes are localized to
relatively experimental language features / extensions and GHC specific
APIs would ideal.
Eg: I'm OK having to patch ghc-mod so it wor
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:30:23PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> | > You may ask what use is a GHC release that doesn't cause a wave of
> updates?
> | And hence that doesn't work with at least some libraries. Well, it's a
> very useful
> | forcing function to get new features actually ou
| > You may ask what use is a GHC release that doesn't cause a wave of updates?
| And hence that doesn't work with at least some libraries. Well, it's a very
useful
| forcing function to get new features actually out and tested.
|
| But the way you test new features is to write programs tha
| >
> | > Have I got this right?
> | >
> | >
> | > Simon
> | >
> | > *From:*Mark Lentczner [mailto:mark.lentcz...@gmail.com]
> | > *Sent:* 09 February 2013 17:48
> | > *To:* Simon Marlow; Manuel M T Chakravarty; Johan Tibell; Simon
>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:02:18PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
> You may ask what use is a GHC release that doesn't cause a wave of updates?
> And hence that doesn't work with at least some libraries. Well, it's a very
> useful forcing function to get new features actually out and teste
| > *From:*Mark Lentczner [mailto:mark.lentcz...@gmail.com]
| > *Sent:* 09 February 2013 17:48
| > *To:* Simon Marlow; Manuel M T Chakravarty; Johan Tibell; Simon
| > Peyton-Jones; Mark Lentczner; andreas.voel...@gmail.com; Carter
| > Schonwald; kosti...@gmail.com; Edsko de Vries; ghc-de
de Vries; ghc-devs@haskell.org;
glasgow-haskell-users
*Subject:* Re: GHC 7.8 release?
We seem to be circling ever closer to consensus here! Yay!
I think the distinction of non-API breaking and API breaking release is
very important. Refining SPJ's trifecta:
*Haskell Platform* comes out
Chakravarty; Johan Tibell; Simon Peyton-Jones;
Mark Lentczner; andreas.voel...@gmail.com; Carter Schonwald;
kosti...@gmail.com; Edsko de Vries; ghc-devs@haskell.org; glasgow-haskell-users
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
We seem to be circling ever closer to consensus here! Yay!
I think the distinction of
Simon Marlow :
> I agree too - I think it would be great to have non-API-breaking releases
> with new features. So let's think about how that could work.
>
> Some features add APIs, e.g. SIMD adds new primops. So we have to define
> non-API-breaking as a minor version bump in the PVP sense; th
We seem to be circling ever closer to consensus here! Yay!
I think the distinction of non-API breaking and API breaking release is
very important. Refining SPJ's trifecta:
*Haskell Platform* comes out twice a year. It is based on very stable
version of GHC, and intention is that people can just
13:41
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: Carter Schonwald; Manuel Chakravarty; parallel-haskell; Mark Lentczner; GHC
Users List; ghc-devs@haskell.org; Edsko de Vries
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
mailto:simo...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
In short,
* Manuel M T Chakravarty [2013-02-10 21:17:07+1100]
> Re (2): we should encourage contributors to fork the GHC repos on
> GitHub and work in those. That makes it easy for everybody to build
> forks (which will be longer-lived under the above policy) and creating
> a fork doesn't require any specia
Simon Peyton-Jones :
> If there's a path to having a release strategy as Manuel suggests, and having
> an intermediate release with the new vector primops, type extensions and
> such goodness, then I'm all for it. A lot of these bits are things ill start
> using almost immediately in productio
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 12:06:12PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> As a straw man, let's suppose we want to do annual API releases in
> September, with intermediate non-API releases in February.
That's a non-API release 5 months after the API release.
6.10.2 was 5 months after 6.10.1 (.3 was 1
I agree too - I think it would be great to have non-API-breaking
releases with new features. So let's think about how that could work.
Some features add APIs, e.g. SIMD adds new primops. So we have to
define non-API-breaking as a minor version bump in the PVP sense; that
is, you can add to a
evs@haskell.org; Andreas Voellmy; Simon Peyton-Jones;
Edsko de Vries; Mark Lentczner; Johan Tibell; parallel-haskell
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
+10^100 to Johan and Manuel. Breaking changes on pieces that aren't
experimental is the main compatibility / new version pain,
and I say this as some
I completely agree with Johan. The problem is to change core APIs too fast.
Adding, say, SIMD instructions or having a new type extension (that needs to be
explicitly activated with a -X option) shouldn't break packages.
I'm all for restricting major API changes to once a year, but why can't we
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> For a while we've been doing one major release per year, and 1-2 minor
> releases. We have a big sign at the top of the download page directing
> people to the platform. We arrived here after various discussions in the
> past - there were a
+10^100 to Johan and Manuel. Breaking changes on pieces that aren't
experimental is the main compatibility / new version pain,
and I say this as someone who's spent time before and around the 7.4 and
7.6 releases testing out lots of major packages and sending a few patches
to various maintainers.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 02:28:20PM +, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> So I think, if anything, there's pressure to have fewer major
> releases of GHC. However, we're doing the opposite: 7.0 to 7.2 was
> 10 months, 7.2 to 7.4 was 6 months, 7.4 to 7.6 was 7 months. We're
> getting too efficient at maki
ow; parallel-haskell; kosti...@gmail.com; Edsko de Vries;
ghc-devs@haskell.org
*Subject:* Re: GHC 7.8 release?
I'd say the window for 7.8 in the platform is about closed. If 7.8
were to be release in the next two weeks that would be just about the
least amount of time I'd want to se
johan, how do you and Bryan have those jenkin's nodes setup?
(I'm planning to setup something similar for my own use, and seeing how
thats setup would be awesome)
thanks
-Carter
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
>
>>
(sorry for re-post, but the first one got rejected from some lists due to
too many recipients)
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Does this strike a chord with anyone, or have I got the wrong impression
> and everyone is happy with the pace?
>
I am happy with the pace; I lik
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote:
>
> I wish GHC would radically change it's release process. Things like 7.8
> shouldn't be release as "7.8". That sounds major and stable. The web site
> will have 7.8 at the top. The warning to use the platform will fall flat
> becau
Hi Bryan,
On 8 Feb 2013, at 11:53, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Tim Watson wrote:
> Likewise, I'm in the process of setting up Elastic Bamboo on EC2 for Cloud
> Haskell and would be very interested in seeing how you've dealt with multiple
> versions of GHC.
>
> It
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Tim Watson wrote:
> Likewise, I'm in the process of setting up Elastic Bamboo on EC2 for Cloud
> Haskell and would be very interested in seeing how you've dealt with
> multiple versions of GHC.
>
It's easy to parameterize builds in Jenkins based on different value
On 8 Feb 2013, at 05:18, Carter Schonwald wrote:
> johan, how do you and Bryan have those jenkin's nodes setup?
>
> (I'm planning to setup something similar for my own use, and seeing how
> thats setup would be awesome)
>
Likewise, I'm in the process of setting up Elastic Bamboo on EC2 for Cl
johan, how do you and Bryan have those jenkin's nodes setup?
(I'm planning to setup something similar for my own use, and seeing how
thats setup would be awesome)
thanks
-Carter
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
>
>>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
> Right now, the latest packages uploaded to Hackage get built with ghc-7.6
> (only), and all the pages say "Built on ghc-7.6". By doing this we force
> *all* library developers to run GHC 7.6. I think this sends the clearest
> message about wh
On 08/02/2013, at 5:15 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> So perhaps we principally need a way to point people away from GHC and
> towards HP? eg We could prominently say at every download point “Stop! Are
> you sure you want this? You might be better off with the Haskell Platform!
> Here’s w
fantastic thanks
From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 February 2013 17:56
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
Hi Simon,
Starting with the 7.8 release cycle, I will try to run all of nofib and compare
the results to the previous
This is a slight tangent but, I am always somewhat confused about the
release schedule. When reading this, the basic decision seems to come
down to when do we cut a release, taking into account factors like
reliability/bugs/support/community/other stuff like that.
So, IMO, perhaps one thing that's
Schonwald; GHC users; Simon Marlow;
parallel-haskell; kosti...@gmail.com; Edsko de Vries; ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
I'd say the window for 7.8 in the platform is about closed. If 7.8 were to be
release in the next two weeks that would be just about the least amount of
Hi Simon,
Starting with the 7.8 release cycle, I will try to run all of nofib and
compare the results to the previous release (i.e. 7.6.2) to see if we have
any regressions. That way we can catch them before the release.
In the future I intend to set up a build bot that runs nightly and sends
out
I'd say the window for 7.8 in the platform is about closed. If 7.8 were to
be release in the next two weeks that would be just about the least amount
of time I'd want to see for libraries in the platform to get all stable
with the GHC version. And we'd also be counting on the GHC team to be
quickly
I agree with Ian. Mid-February is very soon, and there's a lot of stuff
that seems to just be coming in now. That doesn't leave much time for
testing to get 7.8 out in sync with the platform.
Although my perspective is a bit colored by the last release. Testing the
7.6.1 RC took several weeks f
I'm not too optimistic we could actually get the final release out
during February, assuming we want to allow a couple of weeks for people
to test an RC.
Does the Haskell Platform actually want to commit to using a GHC release
with "tons of [new] stuff", that has had little testing, days or weeks
Geoff's reasoning seems quite sound.
+1 for February release.
On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Geoffrey Mainland 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
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) w
For the record, if we decide for a release soon, I'll make sure the
new-typeable branch gets merged asap.
Cheers,
Pedro
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Dear GHC users,
>
> *
> *
>
> *Carter*: Will this RTS update make it into ghc 7.8 update thats coming
> up i
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
100 matches
Mail list logo
