On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones
wrote:
> | > Has maintainer's not being responsive been a problem for GHC in the
> | > past?
> |
> | Yes. Some of the upstreams respond so fast that it makes my head spin,
> | while others often either don't respond or continually promise to
Hi Ian,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> You didn't give a clear answer to my question. Am I right in thinking
> that your answer would be "Yes, the GHC release should be delayed
> indefinitely"?
I did answer it, just not with a "yes" or "no" as it's a false
dichotomy. I gave
| > Has maintainer's not being responsive been a problem for GHC in the
| > past?
|
| Yes. Some of the upstreams respond so fast that it makes my head spin,
| while others often either don't respond or continually promise to get to
| things soon. (again, these are good, well-meaning people,
Hi Johan,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 03:06:39PM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > If a GHC release needs an unreleased change in one of the libraries, and
> > the maintainer (for whatever reason) is not responding to e-mails,
> > should the GHC
On 6/27/12 6:06 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
This is not a theoretical issue. We have had all of the following
problems happen in the past due to the current process:
* patches never making it upstream
* releases of libraries without knowledge of the maintainer (who
finds out by finding a new ver
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> If a GHC release needs an unreleased change in one of the libraries, and
> the maintainer (for whatever reason) is not responding to e-mails,
> should the GHC release be held up indefinitely?
Again, note that GHC is no different from any
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42:24AM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:30:02PM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
> >>
> >> I just want to see things changed. :)
> >
> > We're happy to try to improve things, but I'm not sure what c
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:30:02PM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
>>
>> I just want to see things changed. :)
>
> We're happy to try to improve things, but I'm not sure what change you
> want exactly.
I want GHC to stop releasing other people's cod
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Paolo Capriotti wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Johan Tibell wrote:
>>> * Some libraries will need to have version bumps, which means that other
>>> libraries will need to loosen their dependencies, which means another
>>> release will be needed anywa
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:30:02PM -0700, Johan Tibell wrote:
>
> I just want to see things changed. :)
We're happy to try to improve things, but I'm not sure what change you
want exactly.
We could change the default for GHC stable branches to:
* Use the tag for the latest release, unless that
(Moving lots of people to BCC. If you want to follow this discussion
it will continue on the glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org list.)
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> Please attribute any blame to me, not Paolo; he's only doing what I
> asked him to :-)
No blame to attribute
11 matches
Mail list logo
