[CakeML-dev] Version 2

Magnus Myreen magnus.myreen at gmail.com
Wed Jul 5 10:42:49 UTC 2017

Hi all,

I'm in favour of this. In particular, I think it would be good to, at
some point, have a definite version 2 before Eval-related material
starts making its way into master.

Ramana and I discussed this briefly in an unrelated Hangout. We came
to the conclusion that maybe we don't need to have a specific commit
yet, but could still start a branch called "version2" where we merge
in a few developments from master for a while still. Eventually we
would stop merging in master and consider "version2" done.


On Wed, 5 Jul 2017 at 03:51, Ramana Kumar <Ramana.Kumar at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
> CakeML has moved pretty far on from version1 (that branch is 2 years old) and is in a reasonably stable state: We can build a bootstrapped compiler for x64 (and risc-v) with a correctness proof, and good benchmarks, and we have verified implementations of various command line programs.
> Is it time to pick a commit to denote as version2, so we can move on to big breaking changes for the next version (runtime evaluation in particular)?
> Any comments on (a) whether you care about numbering versions at all, or should we abandon that idea, or (b) any ongoing work you want to see merged into master before fixing the version2 tag?
> I think I'd like most of the active branches to be merged in first, but otherwise not add anything substantial. There won't be a neat HOL release to go along with version2 this way, but there can be a HOL commit.
> Cheers,
> Ramana
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> Developers at cakeml.org
> https://lists.cakeml.org/listinfo/developers

More information about the Developers mailing list