Based on my cursory look at the patch, I think it's unlikely to break existing functionality in subtle ways. So I'm OK with trying to ship it in 8.0
Edward Excerpts from Simon Marlow's message of 2015-12-03 09:50:37 -0800: > On 03/12/2015 13:50, Ben Gamari wrote: > > Luite Stegeman <stege...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> Is Simon's remote GHCi patch planned to go in before the fork? I'm still > >> working on upgrading GHCJS to work with the master branch, but I haven't > >> quite finished yet. This change would clearly require some restructuring of > >> GHCJSi and Template Haskell in GHCJS, and I'm not sure if a week is enough > >> to test the changes. Also the recent removal of boot file merging > >> reintroduces a problem with that I'm not sure can be fixed without adding a > >> new hook. > >> > > Simon, what do you think about this? > > > > I'm a bit worried that this patch is quite late and breaks users like > > Luite. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear arguments for merging. > > It doesn't have to go in, but I think it would be nice. I'd like to > have it out for at least one major release in a disabled-by-default > state so that we can experiment with it. But as far as my particular > goals for this feature are concerned, I'll backport the patch to 7.10 > and use it in our local GHC build at Facebook regardless. > > Luite - the hooks you use are still intact, so I don't think you have to > do any major restructuring in GHCJS until you're ready. What I've > implemented will almost certainly need work to be usable or shareable > with GHCJS, and it's not clear to me exactly what the changes will look > like, but for the time being I thought the changes should not impact > GHCJS's implementation of TH & GHCi. I could be wrong though, if so > please let me know how it breaks you. > > Cheers, > Simon > > >> What's the policy on adding hooks or GHC API tweaks after the freeze? > >> > > We'll need to work that out when we get to that point. It largely > > depends upon how confined and "safe" a change appears to be. That being > > said, given how much other churn has happened for this release, I don't > > think we want to be sloppy with merge discipline this time around. > > > > Austin, what do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > > > - Ben > > _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs