Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Simplify stack-7.8.yaml by basing it on a recent nightly #2154

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 17, 2016

Conversation

sjakobi
Copy link
Member

@sjakobi sjakobi commented May 17, 2016

No description provided.

@mgsloan
Copy link
Contributor

mgsloan commented May 17, 2016

Great idea, thanks!

@mgsloan mgsloan merged commit 9e616b3 into commercialhaskell:master May 17, 2016
@sjakobi sjakobi deleted the simplify-stack-7-8-yaml branch May 17, 2016 21:23
@sjakobi
Copy link
Member Author

sjakobi commented May 17, 2016

BTW, are we going to keep compatibility with GHC-7.8 once GHC-8.0 is released?

@mgsloan
Copy link
Contributor

mgsloan commented May 17, 2016

That's a good question! Remains to be seen, I think we will probably drop support for building stack with GHC 7.8 once we want to use some 7.10 feature (perhaps implicit callstacks?)

@sjakobi
Copy link
Member Author

sjakobi commented May 17, 2016

Given that commit history already contains a lot of compatibility fixes from the period when stack supported only two major GHC versions, I'm wondering if we can get a better story for supporting three…

Maybe a custom prelude could help. (Which could also help trim down the number of imports in each file…)

Another approach that has worked for me relatively well, is using the stack-7.8.yaml by default. This will sometimes result in warnings with the other versions (AMP, redundant constraints etc.) but usually not in actual errors. Making the stack-7.8.yaml the default stack.yaml might just be enough of an incentive for others to use that one too.

@mgsloan
Copy link
Contributor

mgsloan commented May 17, 2016

Yup! Some variety of custom prelude or import Import makes sense to me. I don't think @chrisdone is a fan of such modules, but perhaps it's ok if it purely consists of module re-exports?

I don't really find the burden of having travis tell me something is broken to be that big of a deal. The multi configurations aspect of #1568 could really help here

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants