GHC 8.2.1 tree freeze timing

tl;dr. The feature freeze for GHC 8.2 will happen on 30 January 2016. Get any patches you'd like to see in 8.2 up on Phabricator soon! Hello everyone, GHC 8.2.1 is quickly approaching. Our plan is to do a release candidate in February, so we would like to have the tree sorted out by the

GHC 8.2.1 tree freeze timing

Hello everyone, GHC 8.2.1 is quickly approaching. Our plan is to do a release candidate in February, so we would like to have the tree sorted out by the end of this month. Consequently, I would like to set a general feature freeze for 30 Janary 2016. If you are concerned that your work isn't

Re: Navigating GHC proposals

> On Jan 9, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Simon Marlow wrote: > > The constraint-vs-type proposal seems a little bit weird in that it actually > has a branch in the ghc-proposals repository itself, rather than being a pull > request from a fork in @goldfire's account. Richard, was

RE: Navigating GHC proposals

That is amazingly indirect. Oh well. Simon From: Simon Marlow [mailto:marlo...@gmail.com] Sent: 09 January 2017 16:55 To: Simon Peyton Jones Cc: ghc-devs@haskell.org; Richard Eisenberg Subject: Re: Navigating GHC proposals Well, you can go to the

Re: Navigating GHC proposals

Hi, Am Montag, den 09.01.2017, 16:03 + schrieb Simon Marlow: > I don't think there is a way to go from the rendered proposal to the > pull request, other than the "back" button in your browser. nothing stops the author to add a link to the discussion to the file, as I did in my proposal

Re: nofib on Shake

Hi, Am Montag, den 09.01.2017, 19:48 + schrieb Michal Terepeta: > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM Joachim Breitner > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am Sonntag, den 08.01.2017, 13:45 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: > > > > We could also create a cabal and stack files for

Re: nofib on Shake

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM Joachim Breitner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Sonntag, den 08.01.2017, 13:45 -0500 schrieb Ben Gamari: > > > We could also create a cabal and stack files for `nofib-analyse` (making > > > it possible to use some libraries for it). > > > > > This

Re: nofib on Shake

> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 7:45 PM Ben Gamari wrote: > Michal Terepeta writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > While looking at nofib, I've found a blog post from Neil Mitchell [1], > > which describes a Shake build system for nofib. The comments mentioned > >

Re: Navigating GHC proposals

Well, you can go to the history of the file, and from there to the first commit ("Rename proposal file"), and from there you'll see a link to the pull request in the blue box next to the name of the branch (the link looks like "#32" in this case). But really, I wouldn't recommend sending the

Re: Debugging GHC with GHCi

On 9 January 2017 at 04:51, Ben Gamari wrote: > Thomas Jakway writes: > > > I want to be able to load certain GHC modules in interpreted mode in > > ghci so I can set breakpoints in them. I have tests in the testsuite > > that are compiled by

RE: Navigating GHC proposals

I don't think there is a way to go from the rendered proposal to the pull request, other than the "back" button in your browser. Seriously? But the rendered proposal is the useful link to send to people. There _must_ be a way, even if its indirect. Simon From: Simon Marlow

Re: Navigating GHC proposals

I don't think there is a way to go from the rendered proposal to the pull request, other than the "back" button in your browser. The constraint-vs-type proposal seems a little bit weird in that it actually has a branch in the ghc-proposals repository itself, rather than being a pull request from

Re: Phabricator upgrade underway

Ben Gamari writes: > Hello everyone, > > I'll be bringing down Phabricator for an upgrade in a few minutes. I'll > let you know when things are back up. > Hello everyone, The upgrade should now be complete. Feel free to resume your typical Phabrication. I've done some

Navigating GHC proposals

Once I am looking the rendered form of a GHC proposal, eg https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/rae/constraint-vs-type/proposals/-constraint-vs-type.rst how can I find my way to the “conversation” for that proposal, so I can comment on it?

Re: Trac to Phabricator (Maniphest) migration prototype

With regards to the other two points that Ben made. I solicited the opinion of a few people when I first made the prototype and the reaction was that it didn't matter to them. We should really make this decision based on the opinions of people who are high utilisers of the tracker. The experience

Re: Trac to Phabricator (Maniphest) migration prototype

To first reply to the one specific reoccurring point about custom fields. The problem with 'os' and 'architecture' is a philosophical one, in what way are they any different to any other metadata for a ticket? I am of the opinion that we should only include information when it is relevant, a lot