Coordinating the Hadrian merge

Ben Gamari ben at
Tue Oct 16 01:32:43 UTC 2018

Andrey Mokhov <andrey.mokhov at> writes:

> Hi Ben,
> Yes, I'm fine to merge, but we should make it clear that Hadrian
> should not be used just yet:
> 1) It is currently broken due to some recent changes in GHC.
> 2) Alp made tremendous progress with fixing the testsuite failures, but there are still some failures left.
> 3) There are a few usability requests by Simon Marlow that we need to address.
>> In the past we discussed squashing the project's early history
>> however I've had very little luck doing this cleanly
Sure, I'm happy to make it clear that things are still in flux and that
there are known weaknesses. That being said, I'm not sure it helps to
active discourage use. Afterall, there will be little incentive for
others to help find and fix the remaining issues unless there are users.

> Ouch, it would be a bit grim to merge all those early commits. On the
> other hand, I looked at commits at the middle of Hadrian's history and
> they look quite sensible, just overly fine-grained. So, even if we
> could somehow squash the early history, that probably wouldn't give us
> much saving in terms of the commit count -- it would still be more
> than 1K.
Right; given that GHC itself has more than 50k commits I'm not terribly
concerned about Hadrian's contribution.

How should we handle ticket tracking post-merge? The easiest option
would probably be to keep the existing tickets on GitHub and ask that
new tickets be reported via Trac.


- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list