[GHC-Releases] GHC 9.10 release schedule and core library status

[Andrew Lelechenko]

Thanks, Ben, for pushing through version bumps for `filepath` and `containers`. We also released new versions of `bytestring` and `text` last week. 

Mikolaj, what’s the schedule for Cabal 3.12? https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/GHC-status#11-major-releases says that all major releases should be reflected as submodules in GHC source tree before GHC fork date, which is AFAIU this Friday.

Best regards,
Andrew

> On 23 Jan 2024, at 08:32, Mikolaj Konarski <mikolaj at well-typed.com> wrote:
> 
>> * Mikolaj, are we looking for Cabal 3.12 or carrying on with 3.10.3+? There are at least two important features missing from Cabal 3.10: semaphores and multiple home units.
> 
> We plan to have Cabal 3.12 in time.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:59 AM Andrew Lelechenko
> <andrew.lelechenko at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks, Ben. (I’m not subscribed to mail lists CC’d, so I expect this reply to be missing from them)
>> 
>> CC’ng Matthew Craven on behalf of bytestring, Xia Li-yao on behalf of text, Lei Zhu, Carsten König and Miao ZhiCheng on behalf of array (it’s not orphaned).
>> 
>> Several blockers from the top of my head:
>> 
>> * Bump containers submodule to 0.7, long overdue. AFAIR blocked on https://github.com/judah/haskeline/pull/186 - Ben, are you able to merge it?
>> 
>> * Bump filepath submodule to 1.5 and add os-string to boot libraries. Julian might remember better, but AFAIR there are no blockers, just someone has to upgrade several submodules at once.
>> 
>> * GHCJS progress depends on merging outstanding PRs for bytestring and text to provide pure Haskell implementations, and I imagine Sylvain (CC’d) would wish them to be merged and released before GHC 9.10 is forked.
>> 
>> * Mikolaj, are we looking for Cabal 3.12 or carrying on with 3.10.3+? There are at least two important features missing from Cabal 3.10: semaphores and multiple home units.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Andrew
>> 
>> On 22 Jan 2024, at 16:00, Ben Gamari <ben at well-typed.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> First, apologies for the silence regarding the 9.10 fork; I was hoping
>> to improve our communications with boot library authors in the run-up to
>> GHC 9.10 but illness unfortunately took me largely out of commission for
>> a first few weeks of the year. Happily, things are looking rosier now.
>> 
>> Having had a chance to look at the 9.10 branch and the release goals, I
>> am planning to cut the fork for GHC 9.10 around a month from today, on
>> 23 Februrary 2024. This leaves around a month of time to merge the
>> `ghc-internals` split and a few of the other bits of work that remain
>> outstanding. We anticipate the first alpha release will come a week
>> after the fork (see the Milestone [1] for further details).
>> 
>> How does this sound to you?
>> 
>> For organizational purposes, it would be helpful if we designated a
>> coordinating maintainer for each of our boot packagers for the 9.10 release.
>> My understanding is that our boot libraries have the following primary
>> maintainers but don't hesitate to let me know if you believe this to be
>> incorrect:
>> 
>> | Package         | Maintainer                 |
>> | --------------- | -------------------------- |
>> | Cabal           | Mikolaj Konarski           |
>> | Win32           | Tamar Christina            |
>> | array           | (orphaned)                 |
>> | binary          | Lennart Kolmodin?          |
>> | bytestring      | Andrew Lelechanko          |
>> | containers      | David Feuer                |
>> | deepseq         | Melanie Phoenix            |
>> | directory       | Phil Rufflewind            |
>> | exceptions      | Ryan Scott                 |
>> | filepath        | Julian Ospald              |
>> | haddock         | Hecate                     |
>> | haskeline       | Judah Jacobson             |
>> | hpc             | David Binder               |
>> | mtl             | Emily Pillmore             |
>> | parsec          | Oleg Grenrus               |
>> | process         | Michael Snoyman            |
>> | stm             | Simon Marlow               |
>> | terminfo        | Judah Jacobson             |
>> | text            | Andrew Lelechanko          |
>> | time            | Ashley Yakeley             |
>> | transformers    | Ross Paterson              |
>> | unix            | Julian Ospald              |
>> 
>> It would be great if each maintainer could let me know what they would
>> like to do for the 9.10 release. In general we would love to have the
>> set of boot libraries pinned down at least in version by the second
>> alpha, which we are planning for the second week of March 2024. Does
>> this sound reasonable?
>> 
>> As always, I would encourage core library maintainers to be conservative
>> in their plans for a GHC release and avoid introducing major features or
>> refactorings in their release. Such changes both add risk to the release
>> schedule and complicate the users' migration paths; consequently, they
>> are ideally best held for releases asynchronous to the GHC release
>> process.
>> 
>> Thanks again for all of your work!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> - Ben
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/milestones/380#tab-issues
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-releases/attachments/20240220/47c9c0ce/attachment-0001.html>