We could make all of hackage be part of the ghc build, and it would turn up bugs. But we don't do that either. Why is dph special?

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Geoffrey Mainland <mainland@apeiron.net> wrote:
On 1/22/16 8:05 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:
> Manuel M T Chakravarty <chak@cse.unsw.edu.au> writes: > >> The way I see it, the main cost of keeping DPH around is to handle
>> breakages such as that with vector. I can’t promise to address those
>> in a timely manner, which is why I agreed to disable/remove DPH. >>
>> However, as Geoff stepped forward, this issue is solved. As for the
>> overhead in compile time etc, I don’t think, it is that much of a >>
deal. During development, most compiles runs are incremental anyway. >>
> Judging by the VCS history it seems that nothing happened in response
to > this thread. Geoff, do you see yourself having time to pick this up
in > the near future? > > If not, perhaps we should pick up this matter
again and seriously > consider parking this code in a branch until
someone is able to pick it > up again. > > Cheers, > > - Ben

Yes, I am willing to do the work to get DPH back into the build in the
near future. However, that only makes sense if we are willing to build
DPH regularly. Also, I can't be solely responsible for all breakage
resulting from DPH; DPH has regularly exposed bugs in the past, which is
one reason to get it back into the regular build, but I can't promise to
fix all problems that might be exposed by DPH in the future :)

If I put a patch on Phab that updates DPH, are we willing to make DPH
part of the regular validation script again?

Cheers,
Geoff

_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs