duncan.coutts: > On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 13:32 -0700, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > All, > > > > We've got an unfortunate situation with the bytestring repo. It got > > accidentally forked after the ghc-6.8 release and is now about 7 > > releases behind and contains many known bugs and performance problems. > > It would be pretty bad if ghc-6.10.1 shipped with this ancient > > bytestring version. > > Just to be clear we have three options and one non-option: > > * Flag day switch of the bytestring repo that ghc head and > ghc-6.10 use. This would annoy users who are using those repos > as they would have to rm and get the repo again. Could possibly > help inform users via the ./darcs-all script so they don't end > up trying to merge unmergable repos. > * Apply a mega-patch to ghc's forked bytestring repo to bring it > up to the same content as the current bytestring release. Would > still not be able to easily merge patches thereafter. > * Drop bytestring as a boot lib. There are only two deps anywhere > else in the system neither of which are essential. > > Non-option: > > * Do nothing and ship an old buggy bytestring that everyone will > have to upgrade (and the upgrade would clash with the ghc api > package).
After this release, we should have another round of analysis on how we can limit the impact GHC's release process has on the Haskell libraries. If we could ship a binary-only GHC, that registered no libraries at all, we'd have solved one nice bottleneck in the community. -- Don _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
