Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Base library organisation

This proposal has just popped up in another discussion, and its implications dawned on me. I see two major issues with the proposal in its current form: 1. Proposal authors shouldn't need to interact with two committees instead of one. It is generally fine to have coordination between committees, so I can imagine a system where GHC SC cannot approve a proposal on its own and must contact CLC when a proposal touches base. Proposal authors mustn't be bothered with the intricacies of this process, they need to write a single document, submit it on a single platform, and then either have it accepted or rejected, whether by GHC SC alone or by a joint GHC SC + CLC committee. 2. Proposal implementors need a single source of truth for the accepted changes. If the proposal document has been marked accepted, it means that it's ready for implementation. Now, I have no problem whatsoever with involving CLC before a proposal is accepted, but once it's done, it's done. It's quite important to be able to point potential contributors to a document that describes the changes we want to see in GHC and its libraries, and it can't be that parts of this document are actually accepted and parts of it are kind-of-accepted-but-non-binding-and-another-proposal-on-another-platform-is-pending. So I agree with the general idea that it's important to get CLC involved, but for the sake of proposal authors and proposal implementors, this should be a committee-to-committee interaction, not a person-to-two-committees interaction; and acceptance of a proposal needs to be a single atomic operation instead of having kind-of-accepted documents floating around in the ghc-proposals repo. Vlad On jeu., juin 29 2023 at 09:49:09 +01:00:00, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

...

make the GHC proposal in conjunction with a CLC proposal and land them in GHC together. Streamlining this process would be good

That is absolutely an option, yes.

Simon

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 08:27, Simon Marlow mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The link in the email is broken BTW, is there any updated URL?

Just based on the summary in the email, what immediately springs to mind is that adding functions to ghc-experimental and then moving them to base implies an extra migration that clients have to do in the future (would the APIs in ghc-experimental be deprecated first? For how long? etc.). It probably makes sense only to do this for additions of fairly large new APIs, and for smaller changes we should probably shortcut the process and make the GHC proposal in conjunction with a CLC proposal and land them in GHC together. Streamlining this process would be good. Maybe the actual proposal already says a lot of this?

Cheers Simon

On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 10:04, Simon Peyton Jones mailto:simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Dear GHC Steering Committee

Over the last few weeks, Ben Gamari and I have been discussing with Andrew and Julian from the Core Libraries Committee how to make the Core Libraries Committee and the GHC developers work together more fluidly; and that includes the GHC Steering Committee.

We now have a fairly well fleshed out proposal here. https://github.com/Ericson2314/tech-proposals/blob/ghc-base-libraries/propos...

I hope you like it. As far as this committee is concerned there are two particular points of note We propose a new package, *ghc-experimental*, which depends on *base*. Many GHC proposals involve defining new types and functions. The idea is that these would initially be in *ghc-experimental*. After they stabilise and become widely adopted, the author (or anyone else) can make a CLC proposal to move them to *base*, which has much stronger stability guarantees.Section 5.1 suggests a mechanism to involve CLC members in proposals that involve new functions and types, at an earlier stage. Some involve /changing/existing types and functions. It is clearly unproductive for us to debate such things at length, and only /then/to land it on the CLC.

Section 5.1 also suggests that proposals should explicitly (in a separate section) call out What new types and functions it definesWhat existing types and functions are changed. We should add that to our template.

At the moment we are just sharing the proposal with relevant stakeholders (yourselves, CLC, stack folk, cabal folk etc), so that we can polish any rough edges before making it public.

So, any views? Personally I think this is a Big Step Forward.

Simon

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee