Austin, the ghc-7.8 branch does not build. See below.
Simon
inplace/bin/mkUserGuidePart docs/users_guide/users_guide.xml
inplace/bin/mkUserGuidePart docs/users_guide/what_glasgow_exts_does.gen.xml
rm -rf docs/users_guide/users_guide/
/usr/bin/xsltproc --stringparam base.dir
Hello all,
After a long week, I've finally gotten a little time to reply to
emails, and I mainly have one question I'd like to ask.
First, please direct your attention to this:
Hi,
On 2014-05-27 at 10:06:39 +0200, Austin Seipp wrote:
[...]
The question is: when should we do the release? There are several bugs
there that seem quite problematic for users - #9045, #7097, #9001,
#8768 and #9078 in particular.
Personally, I'd vote for a soon-ish 7.8.3 release for
On 24/05/2014 01:11, Luite Stegeman wrote:
In particular, the variant of weak reference you suggest is the
/ephemeron/ semantics in Hayes. Their reachability rule is:
The value field of an ephemeron is reachable if both (a) the
ephemeron (weak pointer object) is
Hi Austin,
I ask this because my time to dedicate to GHC is a bit thin right now,
so you must help me decide what's important! So please let me know -
just a general vote in favor of doing it within some X timeframe (even
'real soon' or 'a week would be great') would be nice.
Would you give
I would say sooner. Here are still unmerged things that I think we could
merge before (i.e. easy to merge):
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9001
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/9078
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8475
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8783
are these all on Austin’s list, which he sent a pointer to?
Simon
From: Glasgow-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-boun...@haskell.org]
On Behalf Of Johan Tibell
Sent: 27 May 2014 10:01
To: Michael Snoyman
Cc: glasgow-haskell-us...@haskell.org; ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: GHC
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Simon Peyton Jones
simo...@microsoft.comwrote:
are these all on Austin’s list, which he sent a pointer to?
Yes, they were in the last section of the page he linked to.
___
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Personally, I'd vote for a soon-ish 7.8.3 release for things which
already have a working good/low-risk fix in ghc-7.8, so the next HP can
go with 7.8.3 instead of using the known-to-be-suboptimal 7.8.2
It's not certain that the HP team will be able to wait for
On 2014-05-27 at 12:13:18 +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
Personally, I'd vote for a soon-ish 7.8.3 release for things which
already have a working good/low-risk fix in ghc-7.8, so the next HP can
go with 7.8.3 instead of using the known-to-be-suboptimal 7.8.2
It's
Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
What kind of version tweaks are you thinking about? (Afaics, the GHC
bundled libraries don't have any version bumps.)
Well for one thing, wouldn't the version of base be bumped?
If the bugs fixed in 7.8.3 affect any packages in the platform,
we would want to make
As far as I can see, the proposed fixes are all compiler and RTS fixes. (At
least, it should be easy to restrict 6.8.3 to that. Austin?)
So, I don’t think it would affect the packages. And of what use is a platform
that includes a compiler of which we know that it has serious problems?
Manuel
On 2014-05-27 at 12:47:53 +0200, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
What kind of version tweaks are you thinking about? (Afaics, the GHC
bundled libraries don't have any version bumps.)
Well for one thing, wouldn't the version of base be bumped?
There's not been any change
I've gotten similar errors when my network connection is acting up -- I think
DocBook goes out to the web to download the schema for GHC's manual. When it
fails to find the schema, the errors below happen. Have you tried again? Maybe
the source for the schema (sourceforge, from the looks of it)
OK then. It's just a question of updating some scripts,
rebuilding and retesting. If these are serious generable
usability issues, you are right that it sounds compelling.
Still, it will add time, so Mark will have to decide.
Thanks,
Yitz
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel
Seriously? you need a live internet connection to build GHC?? But yes, it
still hapopns
From: Richard Eisenberg [mailto:e...@cis.upenn.edu]
Sent: 27 May 2014 13:05
To: Simon Peyton Jones
Cc: Austin Seipp; ghc-devs@haskell.org
Subject: Re: Ghc 7.8 branch broken
I've gotten similar errors when
To build the manual, yes, in my experience. Builds without the manual work fine.
I've also had problems building the manual (with similar errors) multithreaded.
Are you passing any `-j` flags to `make`? Try saying `make -j1` just to be sure.
Richard
On May 27, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Simon Peyton
+1
for a soon-ish 7.8.3 release for things which
already have a working good/low-risk fix in ghc-7.8, so the next HP can
go with 7.8.3 instead of using the known-to-be-suboptimal 7.8.2
Also, I don't have a reproducible case but I am getting occasional errors
with 7.8.2 on Apple Mavericks that
Hi!
It would be great if the patch I added on #9080 was put into 7.8.3 (well, I
guess someone has to commit it to master first).
Niklas
2014-05-27 10:06 GMT+02:00 Austin Seipp aus...@well-typed.com:
Hello all,
After a long week, I've finally gotten a little time to reply to
emails, and I
Hi Niklas,
Yes, that patch looks great, thank you. The only reason it wasn't
included in the list earlier was that the status was set to 'new', not
to 'patch!' I'm afraid this is perhaps the most critical aspect
necessary for me to recognize such tickets. I have marked it as patch,
and it can go
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Richard Eisenberg e...@cis.upenn.eduwrote:
To build the manual, yes, in my experience. Builds without the manual work
fine.
Perhaps adding --nonet to the xsltproc command line is in order.
___
ghc-devs mailing list
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:51:55AM -0700, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Richard Eisenberg e...@cis.upenn.eduwrote:
To build the manual, yes, in my experience. Builds without the manual work
fine.
Perhaps adding --nonet to the xsltproc command line is in order.
Mark,
Did you see this thread?
Manuel
Yitzchak Gale g...@sefer.org:
OK then. It's just a question of updating some scripts,
rebuilding and retesting. If these are serious generable
usability issues, you are right that it sounds compelling.
Still, it will add time, so Mark will have to
23 matches
Mail list logo
