Quantcast

6.10.3 plans

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

6.10.3 plans

Ian Lynagh

Hi all,

Due to some problems with the handling of ^C in ghci, we are planning to
do a 6.10.3 release.

The idea is that, rather than being a full-blown release process,
including all the various fixes that have been made since 6.10.2, we
will only do what is necessary to resolve the ^C issue. By keeping the
changes to a minimum, we will minimise the amount of testing,
release-note writing, etc that is necessary.

An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in
the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else.



There are actually two problems with ^C. One is due to the changes in
the signal handling in ghci, and we will fix that. The other is that, on
some platforms (including x86/Linux), the interaction between editline
and GHC means that pressing ^C causes a segfault. Given all the other
issues that people have had with editline, we plan to use haskeline in
6.10.3 instead. We already planned to do this for 6.12, but we think
that it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. The plan is:

* Add haskeline and deps as boot packages

* Move the interactive modules from the ghc package to the ghc-bin
  package. This means that the ghc package will not depend on the new
  boot packages, so there will not be any problems with upgrading them.


Any comments?


Thanks
Ian

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Sigbjorn Finne
Hi Ian,

thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
that the operational behaviour of these have changed.

Small change, but could be helpful to package users&authors when migrating
beyond 6.10.1

thanks
--sigbjorn

On 4/22/2009 16:56, Ian Lynagh wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Due to some problems with the handling of ^C in ghci, we are planning to
> do a 6.10.3 release.
>
> The idea is that, rather than being a full-blown release process,
> including all the various fixes that have been made since 6.10.2, we
> will only do what is necessary to resolve the ^C issue. By keeping the
> changes to a minimum, we will minimise the amount of testing,
> release-note writing, etc that is necessary.
>
> An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in
> the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else.
>
>
>
> There are actually two problems with ^C. One is due to the changes in
> the signal handling in ghci, and we will fix that. The other is that, on
> some platforms (including x86/Linux), the interaction between editline
> and GHC means that pressing ^C causes a segfault. Given all the other
> issues that people have had with editline, we plan to use haskeline in
> 6.10.3 instead. We already planned to do this for 6.12, but we think
> that it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. The plan is:
>
> * Add haskeline and deps as boot packages
>
> * Move the interactive modules from the ghc package to the ghc-bin
>   package. This means that the ghc package will not depend on the new
>   boot packages, so there will not be any problems with upgrading them.
>
>
> Any comments?
>
>
> Thanks
> Ian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>  

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Alexander Dunlap
In reply to this post by Ian Lynagh
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ian Lynagh <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Due to some problems with the handling of ^C in ghci, we are planning to
> do a 6.10.3 release.
>
> The idea is that, rather than being a full-blown release process,
> including all the various fixes that have been made since 6.10.2, we
> will only do what is necessary to resolve the ^C issue. By keeping the
> changes to a minimum, we will minimise the amount of testing,
> release-note writing, etc that is necessary.
>
> An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle time in
> the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else.
>
>
>
> There are actually two problems with ^C. One is due to the changes in
> the signal handling in ghci, and we will fix that. The other is that, on
> some platforms (including x86/Linux), the interaction between editline
> and GHC means that pressing ^C causes a segfault. Given all the other
> issues that people have had with editline, we plan to use haskeline in
> 6.10.3 instead. We already planned to do this for 6.12, but we think
> that it makes sense to do it sooner rather than later. The plan is:
>
> * Add haskeline and deps as boot packages
>
> * Move the interactive modules from the ghc package to the ghc-bin
>  package. This means that the ghc package will not depend on the new
>  boot packages, so there will not be any problems with upgrading them.
>
>
> Any comments?
>
>
> Thanks
> Ian
>

Would this be a good time to add the "time" package too, or has that
issue been resolved?

Alex
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Brandon S Allbery KF8NH-2
On Apr 22, 2009, at 22:00 , Alexander Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ian Lynagh <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> An exception to this rule is that we will probably also rebundle  
>> time in
>> the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else.
>
> Would this be a good time to add the "time" package too, or has that
> issue been resolved?


...

--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] [hidden email]
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] [hidden email]
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university    KF8NH



_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users

PGP.sig (202 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: 6.10.3 plans

Bayley, Alistair-3
In reply to this post by Alexander Dunlap
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Alexander Dunlap
> >
> > An exception to this rule is that we will probably also
> rebundle time in
> > the bindists, as that has little chance of breaking anything else.
>
> Would this be a good time to add the "time" package too, or has that
> issue been resolved?

I think Ian said time will be rebundled (see excerpt above).

Alistair
*****************************************************************
Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message,
and any attachments, may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. It is intended solely for the person(s) or entity to
which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is
prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.
*****************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Duncan Coutts
In reply to this post by Sigbjorn Finne
On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
> release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
> me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
> to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
> Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
> that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
>
> Small change, but could be helpful to package users&authors when migrating
> beyond 6.10.1

I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
release.

I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).

Duncan

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Sigbjorn Finne
On 4/23/2009 02:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
>  
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
>> release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
>> me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
>> to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
>> Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
>> that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
>>
>> Small change, but could be helpful to package users&authors when migrating
>> beyond 6.10.1
>>    
>
> I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
> release.
>
> I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
> The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
> not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).
>  
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they were. Just offered it as a
pragmatic solution to deliver
extra help to folks without spending the dev. time to implement a more
appropriate pragma
like WARNING/INFO. If such a thing already existed...

--sigbjorn

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Duncan Coutts
On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 05:59 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:

> On 4/23/2009 02:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
> >  
> >> Hi Ian,
> >>
> >> thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
> >> release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
> >> me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
> >> to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
> >> Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
> >> that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
> >>
> >> Small change, but could be helpful to package users&authors when migrating
> >> beyond 6.10.1
> >>    
> >
> > I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
> > release.
> >
> > I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
> > The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
> > not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).
> >  
> Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they were. Just offered it as a
> pragmatic solution to deliver extra help to folks without spending the
> dev. time to implement a more appropriate pragma like WARNING/INFO. If
> such a thing already existed...

For INFO we'd want a mechanism to have it tell us the first time but
once we acknowledge the info, for it not to keep bugging us or our users
every time. Hmm, tricky.

Duncan

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Simon Marlow-7
2009/4/23 Duncan Coutts <[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 05:59 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
>> On 4/23/2009 02:05, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 18:55 -0700, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Ian,
>> >>
>> >> thanks for the update on plans and the willingness to jump in and do another
>> >> release cycle so soon after 6.10.2. The suggested fixes seem agreeable to
>> >> me, but I have one _minor_ additional request for 6.10.3 if you end having
>> >> to rebuild 'base' -- add a DEPRECATED (or some such) to
>> >> Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer} to indicate
>> >> that the operational behaviour of these have changed.
>> >>
>> >> Small change, but could be helpful to package users&authors when migrating
>> >> beyond 6.10.1
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree that it's a little unfortunate that this change is in a minor
>> > release.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what can be done as far as automatic messages go however.
>> > The notice about the change is in the release notes. The functions are
>> > not deprecated (they're part of the FFI spec).
>> >
>> Sorry, didn't mean to imply that they were. Just offered it as a
>> pragmatic solution to deliver extra help to folks without spending the
>> dev. time to implement a more appropriate pragma like WARNING/INFO. If
>> such a thing already existed...
>
> For INFO we'd want a mechanism to have it tell us the first time but
> once we acknowledge the info, for it not to keep bugging us or our users
> every time. Hmm, tricky.

We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:

http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma

Cheers,
  Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Ian Lynagh
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
>
> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma

I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
would mean that people who really do want
    Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
would not be able to write warning-free code.


Thanks
Ian

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Manuel M T Chakravarty
Ian Lynagh:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>
>> We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
>>
>> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
>
> I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
> would mean that people who really do want
>    Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
> would not be able to write warning-free code.

I agree.

Manuel
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Sigbjorn Finne
In reply to this post by Ian Lynagh
On 4/25/2009 07:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>  
>> We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
>>
>> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
>>    
>
> I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
> would mean that people who really do want
>     Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
> would not be able to write warning-free code.
>  

Repeating myself, I suppose :) , but I would be happy to take that "hit"
for 6.10.3 if it avoids other GHC users from spending unproductive
time getting on top of this change. ymmv.

--sigbjorn

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Simon Marlow-7
On 27/04/2009 01:28, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:

> On 4/25/2009 07:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>> We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
>>>
>>> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
>> would mean that people who really do want
>> Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
>> would not be able to write warning-free code.
>
> Repeating myself, I suppose :) , but I would be happy to take that "hit"
> for 6.10.3 if it avoids other GHC users from spending unproductive
> time getting on top of this change. ymmv.

As a compromise, how about expanding the runtime error message to make
it clear that this is a change in 6.10.2?

finalizer: error: a C finalizer called back into Haskell.
    This was previously allowed, but is disallowed in GHC 6.10.2 and later.
    To create finalizers that may call back into Haskll, use
    Foreign.Concurrent.newForeignPtr instead of Foreign.newForeignPtr.

Cheers,
        Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Sigbjorn Finne

Simon Marlow wrote:

> On 27/04/2009 01:28, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
>> ...
>
> As a compromise, how about expanding the runtime error message to make
> it clear that this is a change in 6.10.2?
>
> finalizer: error: a C finalizer called back into Haskell.
>    This was previously allowed, but is disallowed in GHC 6.10.2 and
> later.
>    To create finalizers that may call back into Haskll, use
>    Foreign.Concurrent.newForeignPtr instead of Foreign.newForeignPtr.
>
That's definitely helpful; I'm all for it. Hope there's time available
to put it in.

cheers
--sigbjorn

_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 6.10.3 plans

Iavor Diatchki
In reply to this post by Simon Marlow-7
Hi,
Perhaps it would make sense to add something along those lines to the
documentation for Foreign.newForeignPtr as well?
-Iavor



On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Simon Marlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 27/04/2009 01:28, Sigbjorn Finne wrote:
>>
>> On 4/25/2009 07:16, Ian Lynagh wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:08:38AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We do have a WARNING pragma, incedentally:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/latest/html/users_guide/pragmas.html#warning-deprecated-pragma
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that using it for this would be a good idea, though. It
>>> would mean that people who really do want
>>> Foreign.ForeignPtr.{newForeignPtr,addForeignPtrFinalizer}
>>> would not be able to write warning-free code.
>>
>> Repeating myself, I suppose :) , but I would be happy to take that "hit"
>> for 6.10.3 if it avoids other GHC users from spending unproductive
>> time getting on top of this change. ymmv.
>
> As a compromise, how about expanding the runtime error message to make it
> clear that this is a change in 6.10.2?
>
> finalizer: error: a C finalizer called back into Haskell.
>   This was previously allowed, but is disallowed in GHC 6.10.2 and later.
>   To create finalizers that may call back into Haskll, use
>   Foreign.Concurrent.newForeignPtr instead of Foreign.newForeignPtr.
>
> Cheers,
>        Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
>
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Loading...