johan, how do you and Bryan have those jenkin's nodes setup?
(I'm planning to setup something similar for my own use, and seeing how
thats setup would be awesome)
thanks
-Carter
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Johan Tibell wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
>
>>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Ben Lippmeier wrote:
> Right now, the latest packages uploaded to Hackage get built with ghc-7.6
> (only), and all the pages say "Built on ghc-7.6". By doing this we force
> *all* library developers to run GHC 7.6. I think this sends the clearest
> message about wh
On 08/02/2013, at 5:15 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> So perhaps we principally need a way to point people away from GHC and
> towards HP? eg We could prominently say at every download point “Stop! Are
> you sure you want this? You might be better off with the Haskell Platform!
> Here’s w
And here are the shootout benchmark results:
Program SizeAllocs Runtime Elapsed TotalMem
binary-trees
fantastic thanks
From: Johan Tibell [mailto:johan.tib...@gmail.com]
Sent: 07 February 2013 17:56
To: Simon Peyton-Jones
Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: GHC 7.8 release?
Hi Simon,
Starting with the 7.8 release cycle, I will try to run all of nofib and compare
the results to the previous re
Hi all,
I just ran nofib on current HEAD and compared it to 7.6.2 on my 64-bit
Linux machine. There are some regressions I think we should look into
before a release:
Program SizeAllocs Runtim
This is a slight tangent but, I am always somewhat confused about the
release schedule. When reading this, the basic decision seems to come
down to when do we cut a release, taking into account factors like
reliability/bugs/support/community/other stuff like that.
So, IMO, perhaps one thing that's
It’s fairly simple in my mind. There are two “channels” (if I understand Mark’s
terminology right):
· Haskell Platform:
o A stable development environment, lots of libraries known to work
o Newcomers, and people who value stability, should use the Haskell Platform
o HP comes wit
Hi Simon,
Starting with the 7.8 release cycle, I will try to run all of nofib and
compare the results to the previous release (i.e. 7.6.2) to see if we have
any regressions. That way we can catch them before the release.
In the future I intend to set up a build bot that runs nightly and sends
out
I'd say the window for 7.8 in the platform is about closed. If 7.8 were to
be release in the next two weeks that would be just about the least amount
of time I'd want to see for libraries in the platform to get all stable
with the GHC version. And we'd also be counting on the GHC team to be
quickly
Hello,
my preference would be to build this kind of functionality (and other
related features) in libraries on top of GHC.TypeLits. This modules was
intended to contain only a minimal set of the constants that the compiler
needs to know about, and it already may have too much in it.
On the concr
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:37:13PM +, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:
>
> Which is weird; getPermissions is saying that the file
> "getPermissions001.hs" is executable.
> But, then again, the file system is a mounted shared folder from NTFS,
I suspect that all files in that filesystem appear to b
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 f
In its current state it is not tied to TypeLits, but when Richard adds
his magic it probably will be. It is still an open issue where to put
what, and whether a new module would be fitting.
Richard surely will comment on this. I'd prefer the new instance
definitions in TypeLits to avoid orphans. Th
Hey Gabor,
And why should it be part of base? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this
is not important/useful. I'm just wondering about the reason to have it in
base.
Is it tied to TypeLits?
Cheers,
Pedro
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Gabor Greif wrote:
> Oi José,
>
> this is a library-only
Oi José,
this is a library-only issue, the branch is in libraries/base, thus
somewhat tied to the 7.8 release.
Cheers,
Gabor
On 2/7/13, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Gabor Greif wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/13, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
>> > The only thing that stops
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
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Gabor Greif wrote:
> On 2/6/13, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> > The only thing that stops me from saying "push" is that I think there is
> a
> > better organization for all of this. The ideas we're discussing here
> (things
> > like the Void type) don't seem to belon
Geoff's reasoning seems quite sound.
+1 for February release.
On Feb 7, 2013, at 3:50 AM, Geoffrey Mainland 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
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>
> > And getPermissions001 might or might not have to do with the fact that
> this
> > is on
> > a virtual machine...
>
> What platform are you on, and how is it failing?
>
I'm on Ubuntu 32bit running as guest OS on Win7 64bit. It fails as follo
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 10:34:51AM +, José Pedro Magalhães wrote:
>
> But then again, looking at it, I'm not sure what to do about the perf ones.
> Should
> we be more flexible in the expected result, or should I have fewer
> expectations
> about my machine being representative?
I'm in the mi
I'm very sorry about this. I have been utterly flattened this week.
S
| -Original Message-
| From: Simon Marlow [mailto:marlo...@gmail.com]
| Sent: 07 February 2013 10:14
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Validate failures
|
| These are still f
For what it's worth, I got these failures with sh validate --fast in HEAD
this morning:
Unexpected failures:
../../libraries/directory/tests getPermissions001 [bad stdout] (normal)
perf/compilerT1969 [stat too good] (normal)
perf/compilerT3294 [sta
I've replied on the ticket, which is just about the bad interaction
between StablePtrs and generational GC. We should probably have a
separate ticket to track Eyal's patches to separate StablePtrs from
StableNames, but maybe he wants to work on it for a while longer before
submitting them for
These are still failing, BTW.
Cheers,
Simon
On 01/02/13 14:51, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
yes, see earlier email on this. almost certainly my fault, will fix Monday
| -Original Message-
| From: ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On
| Behalf Of
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) w
Hi all,
On 07 Feb 2013, at 10:44, Simon Marlow wrote:
> On 06/02/13 22:26, Andy Georges wrote:
>> Quantifying performance changes with effect size confidence intervals -
>> Tomas Kalibera and Richard Jones, 2012 (tech report)
>
> This is a good one - it was actually a talk by Richard Jones tha
On 06/02/13 22:26, Andy Georges wrote:
Quantifying performance changes with effect size confidence intervals - Tomas
Kalibera and Richard Jones, 2012 (tech report)
This is a good one - it was actually a talk by Richard Jones that
highlighted to me the problems with averaging over benchmarks (
The ticket contains vastly less information than Eyal's post, though.
Simon
| -Original Message-
| From: Edward Z. Yang [mailto:ezy...@mit.edu]
| Sent: 07 February 2013 08:34
| To: Simon Peyton-Jones
| Cc: Eyal Lotem; "ghc-devs@haskell.org"
| Subject: RE: Stable pointers and hash table pe
For the record, if we decide for a release soon, I'll make sure the
new-typeable branch gets merged asap.
Cheers,
Pedro
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
> Dear GHC users,
>
> *
> *
>
> *Carter*: Will this RTS update make it into ghc 7.8 update thats coming
> up i
Would it be worth turning this into a Trac ticket?
Simon
From: ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:ghc-devs-boun...@haskell.org] On
Behalf Of Eyal Lotem
Sent: 07 February 2013 02:14
To: ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Stable pointers and hash table performance
Hey,
Background
I
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
