On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 19:07 -0500, Thomas Tuegel wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Duncan Coutts > <duncan.cou...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > For the Cabal-1.10 branch, I'm toying between a few options: > > 1. Remove the test feature from the 1.10.x release entirely > > 2. Update to the current state of the test patches in cabal HEAD > > 3. Update to the current state of the test patches in cabal HEAD > > but then disable the detailed test type, keeping just the basic > > test interface for the 1.10.x releases. > > > > We have to do something because the current 1.10.x branch has half the > > test patches and so has a random intermediate API. I'm inclined to go > > for option 3. The plan would be to get some experience with the basic > > interface in a few real packages and to work on getting the detailed API > > sorted out in time for the next major release. That does not need to be > > 12 months away, I've done major releases part-way in the GHC cycle > > before. Lemme know what you think. > > I'm also inclined toward option 3. I don't think developers are going > to rush to immediately convert their test suites to the detailed > interface anyway, so the benefits of having it are mostly long-term. > There are also the issues to work out with Max. Additionally, several > people approached me at HIW with the same concern about the > TestOptions class--using class functions as data field accessors--and > I think I can address those concerns and make a better interface all > in one go. So, option 3 gives us time to think about these things. Ok, excellent, lets go for option 3 then. I'm cc'ing Ian since this is relevant for the Cabal-1.10 branch and thus the GHC 7.x release. Duncan _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
