Next steps for "cabal test" feature

Duncan Coutts duncan.coutts at
Tue Oct 12 10:20:39 EDT 2010

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 19:07 -0500, Thomas Tuegel wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Duncan Coutts
> <duncan.coutts at> wrote:

> > For the Cabal-1.10 branch, I'm toying between a few options:
> >     1. Remove the test feature from the 1.10.x release entirely
> >     2. Update to the current state of the test patches in cabal HEAD
> >     3. Update to the current state of the test patches in cabal HEAD
> >        but then disable the detailed test type, keeping just the basic
> >        test interface for the 1.10.x releases.
> >
> > We have to do something because the current 1.10.x branch has half the
> > test patches and so has a random intermediate API. I'm inclined to go
> > for option 3. The plan would be to get some experience with the basic
> > interface in a few real packages and to work on getting the detailed API
> > sorted out in time for the next major release. That does not need to be
> > 12 months away, I've done major releases part-way in the GHC cycle
> > before. Lemme know what you think.
> I'm also inclined toward option 3.  I don't think developers are going
> to rush to immediately convert their test suites to the detailed
> interface anyway, so the benefits of having it are mostly long-term.
> There are also the issues to work out with Max.  Additionally, several
> people approached me at HIW with the same concern about the
> TestOptions class--using class functions as data field accessors--and
> I think I can address those concerns and make a better interface all
> in one go.  So, option 3 gives us time to think about these things.

Ok, excellent, lets go for option 3 then.

I'm cc'ing Ian since this is relevant for the Cabal-1.10 branch and thus
the GHC 7.x release.


More information about the cabal-devel mailing list