GHC 7.8 release?

[Geoffrey Mainland]

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) would be a good fit for the platform as it would
allow library writers to catch up and ensure that STABLE was tested
enough for inclusion in the platform. It would be a shame to miss the
platform release.

Geoff

On 02/07/2013 08:25 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> 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 I have just been discussing 7.8, and would be interested
> in what you guys think. 
> 
> 
> At ICFP we speculated that we’d make a release of GHC soon after
> Christmas to embody tons of stuff that has been included since 7.6,
> specifically:
> 
> ·         major improvements in DPH (vectorisation avoidance, new
> vectoriser)
> 
> ·         type holes
> 
> ·         rebindable list syntax
> 
> ·         major changes to the type inference engine
> 
> ·         type level natural numbers
> 
> ·         overlapping type families
> 
> ·         the new code generator
> 
> ·         support for vector (SSE/AVX) instructions
> 
>  
> 
> Whenever it comes it would definitely be great to include Andreas &
> friends’ work:
> 
> ·         Scheduler changes to the RTS to improve latency
> 
>  
> 
> The original major reason for proposing a post-Xmas release was to get
> DPH in a working state out into the wild.  However, making a proper
> release imposes costs on everyone else.  Library authors have to scurry
> around to make their libraries work, etc.   Some of the new stuff hasn’t
> been in HEAD for that long, and hence has not been very thoroughly
> tested.   (But of course making a release unleashes a huge wave of
> testing that doesn’t happen otherwise.)
> 
>  
> 
> So another alternative is to leave it all as HEAD, and wait another few
> months before making a release.  You can still use all the new stuff by
> compiling HEAD, or grabbing a snapshot distribution.  And it makes it
> hard for the Haskell platform if GHC moves too fast. Many people are
> still on 7.4.
> 
>  
> 
> There seem to be pros and cons each way.  I don’t have a strong
> opinion.  If you have a view, let us know.
> 
>  
> 
> Simon