Should we aim for a new release in late January?

[Simon Peyton-Jones]

Is it really that many cycles?  (Compared to all the other great stuff the Cabal team are doing.)

Simon

From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tibell at gmail.com]
Sent: 28 November 2013 12:07
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: cabal-devel at haskell.org
Subject: Re: Should we aim for a new release in late January?

Hi Simon,

I don't think it's being actively worked on. Duncan and I chat about it once in a while when we meet in person, but we don't have the cycles to do it.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com<mailto:simonpj at microsoft.com>> wrote:
I'm thrilled that there so much Cabal activity!

Is anyone working on, or interested in, the issue of compiling and installing the same package against different dependencies?  (There was a Google SoC project about this.)  Cabal sandboxes address the same issue, but at some user cost.  It should Just Work.

Simon

From: cabal-devel [mailto:cabal-devel-bounces at haskell.org<mailto:cabal-devel-bounces at haskell.org>] On Behalf Of Johan Tibell
Sent: 27 November 2013 21:01
To: cabal-devel at haskell.org<mailto:cabal-devel at haskell.org>
Subject: Should we aim for a new release in late January?

Hi,

Cabal development is continuing at a furious pace. There are lots of great things in master that I'd like to get out to users, such as

 * relinking avoidance
 * build -j
 * ability to specify exact deps on the command line
 * haskell-suite compiler support
 * bug fixes

Here's an approximate list of commits (both Cabal and cabal-install) since the last release:

    https://github.com/haskell/cabal/compare/Cabal-v1.18.1.2...master

It's not entirely accurate as some patches were cherry-picked onto the 1.18 branch and thus have different commit IDs.

-- Johan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/cabal-devel/attachments/20131128/691fc8be/attachment.html>