GHC 7.8 release?

[John Lato]

I agree with Ian.  Mid-February is very soon, and there's a lot of stuff
that seems to just be coming in now.  That doesn't leave much time for
testing to get 7.8 out in sync with the platform.

Although my perspective is a bit colored by the last release.  Testing the
7.6.1 RC took several weeks for us because of the number of upstream
packages that needed to be updated (not all trivially).  By the time we
were prepared to begin testing our own systems 7.6.1 was already released,
and we couldn't use it because of a number of bugs (
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7257 was a blocker, but there
were others also).  Most of the bugs were fixed very quickly (thanks Simon
M. and Simon PJ!), but by then they were already in the wild.  If there had
been a bit more time to test 7.6.1, maybe some of those fixes would have
made it into the release.


John L.


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Ian Lynagh <ian at well-typed.com> wrote:

>
> I'm not too optimistic we could actually get the final release out
> during February, assuming we want to allow a couple of weeks for people
> to test an RC.
>
> Does the Haskell Platform actually want to commit to using a GHC release
> with "tons of [new] stuff", that has had little testing, days or weeks
> after its release? I thought the idea was that it would favour
> known-good releases over the latest-and-greatest, but perhaps I
> misunderstood or the philosophy has changed.
>
>
> Thanks
> Ian
>
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 09:00:37AM -0500, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> > Geoff's reasoning seems quite sound.
> > +1 for February release.
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Geoffrey Mainland <mainland at apeiron.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > In practice the versions of GHC that are widely used are those that are
> > > included in the platform. Maybe we should coordinate with their next
> > > release? They are targeting a May 6 release, and the release process is
> > > starting March 4, so it sounds like the original GHC release plan
> > > (February release) would be a good fit for the platform as it would
> > > allow library writers to catch up and ensure that STABLE was tested
> > > enough for inclusion in the platform. It would be a shame to miss the
> > > platform release.
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > On 02/07/2013 08:25 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> > >> Dear GHC users,
> > >>
> > >> *
> > >> *
> > >>
> > >> *Carter*: Will this RTS update make it into ghc 7.8 update thats
> coming
> > >> up in the next monthish?
> > >>
> > >> *Andreas*: We are almost there - we are now trying to sort out a
> problem
> > >> on mac os x. It would be helpful to know if there is a cutoff date for
> > >> getting things into 7.8.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Simon, Ian, and I have just been discussing 7.8, and would be
> interested
> > >> in what you guys think.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> At ICFP we speculated that we’d make a release of GHC soon after
> > >> Christmas to embody tons of stuff that has been included since 7.6,
> > >> specifically:
> > >>
> > >> ·         major improvements in DPH (vectorisation avoidance, new
> > >> vectoriser)
> > >>
> > >> ·         type holes
> > >>
> > >> ·         rebindable list syntax
> > >>
> > >> ·         major changes to the type inference engine
> > >>
> > >> ·         type level natural numbers
> > >>
> > >> ·         overlapping type families
> > >>
> > >> ·         the new code generator
> > >>
> > >> ·         support for vector (SSE/AVX) instructions
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Whenever it comes it would definitely be great to include Andreas &
> > >> friends’ work:
> > >>
> > >> ·         Scheduler changes to the RTS to improve latency
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The original major reason for proposing a post-Xmas release was to get
> > >> DPH in a working state out into the wild.  However, making a proper
> > >> release imposes costs on everyone else.  Library authors have to
> scurry
> > >> around to make their libraries work, etc.   Some of the new stuff
> hasn’t
> > >> been in HEAD for that long, and hence has not been very thoroughly
> > >> tested.   (But of course making a release unleashes a huge wave of
> > >> testing that doesn’t happen otherwise.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> So another alternative is to leave it all as HEAD, and wait another
> few
> > >> months before making a release.  You can still use all the new stuff
> by
> > >> compiling HEAD, or grabbing a snapshot distribution.  And it makes it
> > >> hard for the Haskell platform if GHC moves too fast. Many people are
> > >> still on 7.4.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> There seem to be pros and cons each way.  I don’t have a strong
> > >> opinion.  If you have a view, let us know.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-platform mailing list
> Haskell-platform at projects.haskell.org
> http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/glasgow-haskell-users/attachments/20130207/4d81183b/attachment-0001.htm>