I am sorry Simon,

Because I was so heavily involved in its preparation I assumed my support for the proposal was a given.

I enthusiastically support this proposal. I cannot overemphasise how import I think it is that

  1) we as a committee clarify for ourselves the status of these extensions and

  2) how useful I think it is for developers to have ready access such a definitive taxonomy.

Of course it doesn't solve all of our problems, but let's build on it and the feedback we get from the community.

Chris

On 1 Sep 2023, at 10:37, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Simon, Vlad, Eric, Chris, Moritz

I would love to hear from you about this proposal.  Please.

I plan to accept it unless I hear dissent.  But I would much rather have an explicit response from you than take silence as assent.  You are a member of the committee, after all!

My apologies if I have missed your reply

Simon

On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 16:42, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear GHC steering committee

A month ago I wrote to you concerning GHC Proposal 601 about GHC extensions.

We propose a categorization scheme for Haskell language extensions. This scheme is simple, in that there are few categories that are described in terms of the user-relevant aspects, and it is actionable, in that it suggests concrete changes to the warning system of GHC that allow users to express their own risk tolerance and get guidance as they upgrade their compiler

It's holiday time I know, but still, I did not get a single reply.  Is that because you all love it or you all hate it?  RSVP!

I propose acceptance, modulo a few clarifications which I have posted on the discussion thread.

Please reply, yea or nay.

Simon

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 15:58, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear GHC Steering Committee


We propose a categorization scheme for Haskell language extensions. This scheme is simple, in that there are few categories that are described in terms of the user-relevant aspects, and it is actionable, in that it suggests concrete changes to the warning system of GHC that allow users to express their own risk tolerance and get guidance as they upgrade their compiler

I'm happy with this proposal: it seems simple, comprehensible, and actionable. 

The only question in my mind is whether it is worth the bother.  I'd love to hear from the practitioners on the committee.

But I propose that we accept it.

Simon


On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 at 14:39, Joachim Breitner <mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
Dear Committee,

David Thrane Christiansen suggested to categorize extensions into
Experimental, Mature, Deprecated and Legacy, and add warning flag to
GHC that allow users to be warned about (or shouted at for) using such
extensions, if they choose so.

https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601
https://github.com/david-christiansen/ghc-proposals/blob/extension-lifecycle-proposal/proposals/0000-extension-lifecycle-framework.md

Because of the meta-like aspect of this proposal, I’d like to assign
this to Simon PJ.


Please guide us to a conclusion as outlined in
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals#committee-process


Cheers,
Joachim


--
Joachim Breitner
  mail@joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/

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