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

[Ben Gamari]

Mikolaj Konarski <mikolaj at well-typed.com> writes:

>> Mikolaj, what’s the schedule for Cabal 3.12?
>
> I've opened a ticket for the 9.10 cabal and GHC sync point:
> https://github.com/haskell/cabal/issues/9729
>
> Whom should I assign from outside the cabal team?
>
> BTW, is the list of new GHC 9.10 language extensions finalized?
> How about GHC options? Would somebody like to see if the cabal's
> list of of GHC options is up to date (I bet it's not), and which of them
> require a recompilation? The same for extensions (but the list should
> be up to date except for the newest extensions --- are they all listed
> in 9.10 Release Notes this time?). PRs are welcome (one is already
> in the merge queue, but I'm not sure if it's for GHC 9.10:
> https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/8854).
>
The only new extension which has yet to be merged is indeed
ListTuplePuns. Otherwise the T4437 test, which tests the consistency of
GHC's and Cabal's respective language extension sets, doesn't indicate
any new extensions in GHC.

>> all major releases should be reflected as submodules in GHC source tree before GHC fork date
>
> Am I to understand that the cabal-GHC sync should proceed
> differently this time and a cabal release is expected before
> the GHC release?

To clarify, this has been the hope in the past as well. However, things
rarely worked out that way.

> That should be fine, but the semantics
> of cabal's GHC version validation would change from
> "the GHC is tested and known to work fine with cabal"
> to "the GHC exists".

The expectation is that after the fork only bug-fixes will be committed.
Naturally there is always a bit more churn directly after the fork
happens, but I don't expect, e.g., any major new language extensions to
be introduced.

> If so, maybe we should altogether remove
> the spammy "unknown GHC version" cabal warning, decoupling
> cabal and GHC a bit as a welcome side-effect?

In general I am in favor of more decoupling. However, whether the
"unknown GHC version" warning should be removed is something that we
should likely discuss on a ticket.

Cheers,

- Ben
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-releases/attachments/20240222/eb72cdd6/attachment-0001.sig>