The GHC 8.0 feature freeze is coming
stegeman at gmail.com
Fri Dec 4 14:04:22 UTC 2015
Oh I don't want to block anything from being merged, if anything I'd like
to see it get added and actually use the new intrastructure. Unfortunately
it looks like I already need some hook changes to make GHCJSi work
reasonably well, without having to copy/paste huge loads of GHC code into
GHCJS, but it'd feel a bit silly to add hooks for something where a proper
solution is already in place. So I would like to try to update GHCJS to use
this, if there's a good chance that this gets merged.
I just hope that I have enough time to do all of this and verify that
things work before the freeze. It's a bit unfortunate that I can only be
really sure when I actually have things running, and there's always a lot
of work involved in updating GHCJS and its dependencies to work with GHC
HEAD, with many big changes always landing right before the freeze.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:50 PM Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2015 13:50, Ben Gamari wrote:
> > Luite Stegeman <stegeman at gmail.com> 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
> >> 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.
> It doesn't have to go in, but I think it would be nice. I'd like to
> have it out for at least one major release in a disabled-by-default
> state so that we can experiment with it. But as far as my particular
> goals for this feature are concerned, I'll backport the patch to 7.10
> and use it in our local GHC build at Facebook regardless.
> Luite - the hooks you use are still intact, so I don't think you have to
> do any major restructuring in GHCJS until you're ready. What I've
> implemented will almost certainly need work to be usable or shareable
> with GHCJS, and it's not clear to me exactly what the changes will look
> like, but for the time being I thought the changes should not impact
> GHCJS's implementation of TH & GHCi. I could be wrong though, if so
> please let me know how it breaks you.
> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs