The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming

Alan & Kim Zimmerman alan.zimm at
Thu Dec 3 14:44:42 UTC 2015

My 2c, I would love to see the remote GHCi patch land for 8.0.

It is a  big change though.


On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Austin Seipp <austin at> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Ben Gamari <ben at> wrote:
>> Luite Stegeman <stegeman at> writes:
>>> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still
>>> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't
>>> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of
>>> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough
>>> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging
>>> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a
>>> new hook.
>> Simon, what do you think about this?
>> I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like
>> Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging.
> I think this is one we're best off leaving in HEAD. It's a very large
> change, and I'm a bit scared of bringing it in right at the finish
> line, so to speak. I think it might be best to just get it in sometime
> after the branch IMO...
>>> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze?
>> We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely
>> depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being
>> said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't
>> think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around.
>> Austin, what do you think?
>> Cheers,
>> - Ben
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-devs mailing list
>> ghc-devs at
> Hrm. If possible I would like to avoid any breaking changes past the
> first RC, which has normally been my policy... Generally it's just
> easier for everyone this way and people typically don't like too many
> mid-flight changes, once things are in RC-mode.
> That said, if it's something game-breaking for, say, GHCJS, I'd be
> open to it. But we should try to fix it ASAP, not in the middle of
> February. So it would be best if we could find out what hooks or
> tweaks we needed Very Soon.
> --
> Regards,
> Austin Seipp, Haskell Consultant
> Well-Typed LLP,
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list