- ghc-steering-committee

Please review #232: Ambiguous Type pragma, Shepherd: Richard
by Joachim Breitner 30 Jun '19

30 Jun '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Ambiguous Type pragma has been proposed by AntC2 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/232 https://github.com/AntC2/ghc-proposals/blob/patch-2/proposals/AmbiguousType… I propose Richard as the Shepherd. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

Please vote on ExtraCommas
by Joachim Breitner 27 Jun '19

27 Jun '19

Dear Committee, because the discussion wasn’t leading anywhere anymore, we have called a vote on the ExtraCommas proposal: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Please cast your vote! I will close the vote when all of us have voted, or after Sunday (June 26, one week of voting). (It seems that the general public also felt compelled to vote, and out of curiosity, I’ll tally these votes as well. I’m curious how representative we are.) Going into the future, we will have to decide if we want to do votes on GitHub or better here on the mailing list. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 2

Discussion on #214, Namespace specifiers
by Iavor Diatchki 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

Hello, let's have a discussion about proposal #214, Namespace specifiers. https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/214 I believe our new process is to have the discussion on Github, so please share your thoughts over there. I am a bit unclear about the steps in the new process (even though I voted for it :-), but as the shepherd I think I am supposed to make an initial? recommendation. If so, at the moment I am leaning towards a "reject": I do think that the proposal has identified a valid area for improvement, but I don't quite like the currently proposed solution---I wrote some comments on GIthub as to why. Obviously, that's just my opinion, and the discussion would benefit from more input from the committee. Cheers, -Iavor

2 2

Discussion on #216, LocalDo
by Joachim Breitner 17 Jun '19

17 Jun '19

Hello, as I explained in the post at https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/216#issuecomment-499785… I recommend accepting the Local Do proposal. Please join the discussion there. Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 1

Please review #231: Record with syntax, Shepherd: Simon Marlow
by Joachim Breitner 14 Jun '19

14 Jun '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Record `with` syntax has been proposed by Rohan Jacob-Rao https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/231 https://github.com/rohanjr/ghc-proposals/blob/record-with-syntax/proposals/… I propose Simon as the Shepherd, because I everyone else has something on their plate. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

2 1

Status
by Joachim Breitner 11 Jun '19

11 Jun '19

Dear committee, let’s see what happened in the last months. I still wonder if we should do another call for new members, to get fresh momentum here. Simons, as Chairs, what do you think? This has happened since the last status: * Triggered by input from Matthew Pickering, we refined our proposal; discussions are now supposed to be happening on GitHub and shepherd talk to authors before proposing to reject. The mail I just sent had an incomplete list of proposals that I relabeled “Pending shepherd recommendation”. See below for the full list. Dear shepherd (Iavor, Vitaly, Ben, Manuel), please follow the new process for the open proposals listed below. * were asked to review these proposals: #213 Namespace specifiers (Shepherd: Iavor) #194 Updated partial type signatures (Shepherd: Vitaly) * got a recommendation from shepherds about: - none - * returned for revision by shepherd #177 Simple constrained type families * decided about the following proposals #209 Levity-polymorphic Lift (accept) #179 Printing of foralls (accept) #190 Module qualified syntax (accept) #155 Ty vars in lambdas (accept) We currently have to act on the following 5 proposals, 3 down since last stats: Namespace Specifiers https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/214 Shepherd: Iavor Status: Waiting for Iavor to make a recommendation. Updated partial type signatures https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/194 Shepherd: Vitaly Status: Waiting for Vitaly to make a recommendation. Type annotated quoters https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/125 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Still waiting for recommendation. Manuel? Provenance-Qualified Package Imports https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Shepherd: Ben Status: Still waiting for recommendation. Ben, this is pretty old! ExtraCommas https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/87 Shepherd: Chris Recommendation: accept Status: More discussion happened, no clear consensus emerging. Maybe we should just do do a vote (with fine-grained ranked options)? Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

4 8

Re: [ghc-steering-committee] GHC proposals
by Joachim Breitner 11 Jun '19

11 Jun '19

Hi Simon, note that my cis.upenn.edu address will soon vanish with a puff; better use mail(a)joachim-breitner.de. Please allow me to respond on-list, I am sure you are not the only one who is confused by this. Yes, the relabeling was maybe the biggest mistake in our process: Proposals first have a number as Pull Request, but when they are accepted, they get a new, unrelated sequential number. We should have just re-used the PR number and have non-sequential numbers for accepted proposals. I wonder if we can still fix this. Nobody is really using the “accepted” number, so maybe it is fine? > Would it be possible to have a single list of all the proposals, with > their status? The official list of all accepted proposals is https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/tree/master/proposals And the list for PRs is https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls where you can also filter by label, i.e. status (most links from the start page go this, with various filters applied). If someone is eager to do some hacking, one could aggregate all that in a fancy overview page somewhere (else), but I am hesitant to create such code, not because it has to be coded (that’s fun), but it has to be maintained and kept running and understood by everyone. > It would be v helpful if, for accepted proposals, the link pointed to > the canonical, final version of the proposal, and gave its canonical > final number. You mean a link “Accepted proposal” at the top of the discussion thread? Yes, that would be useful; it’s just one more bit of tedious work. Cheers, Joachim Am Dienstag, den 11.06.2019, 07:41 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: > Joachim > I get very confused about GHC proposals and how to find the “right one”. > Here’s an example. We have > Proposal 54: Top-level kind signatures (instead of CUSKs) > Proposal 36: Top-level kind signatures > Apparently they are the same. Richard writes > When a proposal gets proposed, it is a pull request and is assigned a number. After it gets accepted, it is assigned a sequential accepted proposal number. So not-yet-decided proposals are numbered among all such proposals, and accepted proposals are numbered among all such proposals. This is perhaps confusing, but it's what we currently do. > You can get from an accepted proposal to its pull request by clicking the link at the top of the proposal. > Joachim often labels the final resting place of PRs; this one appears overlooked. I've added a link. > I don’t think I’d understood this change of numbering. So I wonder > Would it be possible to lay out the scheme on the GHC proposal home page somewhere? > Would it be possible to have a single list of all the proposals, with their status? At the moment, if you scroll around on the home page you can find various lists, but it would really help to bring them together. > Or, I suppose, two lists: one for PRs and one for accepted proposals. (In each case they may have different labels.) > It would be v helpful if, for accepted proposals, the link pointed to the canonical, final version of the proposal, and gave its canonical final number. > We have quite a lot of proposals, which you do a great job of managing. But I get a bit lost sometimes. > Thanks > Simon -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

3 4

Please discuss: new lexing for (~) and (!), #229
by Richard Eisenberg 31 May '19

31 May '19

Hi all, I have started committee discussion on #229 by recommending acceptance. Please see https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/229#issuecomment-497811… <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/229#issuecomment-497811…> Thanks, Richard

1 0

Please review #229: Parsing of (~) and (!), Shepherd: Richard
by Joachim Breitner 29 May '19

29 May '19

Dear Committee, this is your secretary speaking: Simplify parsing of (~) and (!) have been proposed by Vladislav Zavialov https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/229 https://github.com/int-index/ghc-proposals/blob/whitespace-bang-patterns/pr… I propose Richard as the Shepherd, has he already has groomed the proposal. Please reach consensus as described in https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process In particular, talk to the authors before, if you think this should be rejected, and kick off the discussion on Github, following the steps described under “Now the shepherd proposes to accept or reject the proposal” in the above link. Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail(a)joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

1 0

new process on GitHub
by Richard Eisenberg 22 May '19

22 May '19

Hi Joachim, Might I make a small suggestion: for the next 3 (arbitrary number) times a committee comes up for discussion on GitHub, could you send an email to the list, in addition to the other steps taken? This would help make sure that no proposal gets lost while we work out any notification bugs. Committee members should, ideally, be aware of the proposal discussion without this email, but it's good to be doubly sure. Thanks! Richard

2 1