Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 20, 2023. It is now read-only.

DRAFT Update basement for GHC 9.2 #555

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

DRAFT Update basement for GHC 9.2 #555

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

TomMD
Copy link

@TomMD TomMD commented Oct 31, 2021

From head hackage commit: 1b155606132ae49c039f807249f15fa0b6a039ca
This is probably not in the form the maintainer would like, but is a
starting point.

From head hackage commit: 1b155606132ae49c039f807249f15fa0b6a039ca
This is probably not in the form the maintainer would like, but is a
starting point.
@sjakobi
Copy link

sjakobi commented Nov 9, 2021

Ping @vincenthz.

@andreasabel
Copy link

andreasabel commented Nov 18, 2021

Ping @vincenthz.

NB: the head.hackage patch is at https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/head.hackage/-/blob/master/patches/basement-0.0.12.patch

@TomMD
Copy link
Author

TomMD commented Nov 30, 2021

This package (along with memory) is the main hold up for many projects getting going on GHC 9.2.1. Could a maintainer chime in with guidance? If work is done in parallel that's great and we can close this. If this patch isn't acceptable (and I expect it isn't) then it would just be nice to know what the desired end state looks like.

@mrkkrp
Copy link

mrkkrp commented Jan 26, 2022

It looks like @vincenthz de facto decided to stop maintaining some of his projects without taking time to communicate his decision to those who depend on his work. He seems to be overall still active on GitHub and most likely aware of these messages. I do not know why, and certainly I don't expect anyone maintain any open source projects if they don't feel like it. But perhaps it would be possible to choose co-maintainers for foundation and memory, so that we do not end up in a situation where 30+ packages cannot upgrade? That seems easy enough and hopefully won't require much time/energy.

@ysangkok
Copy link

@mrkkrp Have you seen that Vincent has said GHC 9.2 work has started?

@mrkkrp
Copy link

mrkkrp commented Jan 26, 2022

@ysangkok No I haven't. I do not follow any Google groups. Re @vincenthz's response: fair enough, but why not post a link stating his position for people who just follow GitHub threads like this one? Why does he expect everyone to find answers in the depth of a Google groups discussion? It is really not hard to comment on a pull request like this one. Silence only serves fostering confusion among people who are interested in this work moving along.

I maintain a few libraries too, and I always answer explicitly to everyone even if I have already answered a similar question elsewhere.

@srid srid mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2022
11 tasks
@vincenthz vincenthz closed this Feb 28, 2022
@vincenthz
Copy link
Member

@mrkkrp I don't expect people to find answers in the depth of a google group, please don't invent some random positions from my silence.

anyway this PR went nowhere since it was a HeadHackageUtils module just added in the tree, and has now been done in n integrated way.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants