GHC 7.8 release?
slyich at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 21:36:08 CET 2013
> Thanks for sharing! My perspective is of course as a user. I don't think
> I've ever run into a case where the compiler broken a previous work e.g.
> C++ program. On the other hand I have to make a release of most of the
> libraries I maintain with every GHC release (to bump cabal version
> constraints to accept the new base version, if nothing else).
Just don't set upper version of base on the packages when you are not sure
they will break. Write tested ghc versions in comments instead.
You can't install separate base for a given ghc, so why bother?
According to PVP you need to use 'base < 4.7' in version,
BUT IT IS INSANE
How do you expect users to test new ghc release (preview, name it
any way), if you require them to unpack every nonresolvable package
and update depends by hands?
It's very fun to check -HEAD version for fixed bugs in that respect.
Luckily many devs are not that insane and use arbitrary 'base < 5' or
'base < 10', which will break randomly at an arbitrary base-5 release.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ghc-devs