Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #601: extension lifecycle

The proposal does call out some extensions as experimental, but does not list LT although to me it’s one of the most prominent examples It specifically says that any extensions mentioned are examples only. A separate proposal https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/discussions/635is for deciding which extension is in which category. So this proposal does not, in itself, do any categorisation whatsoever. Simon On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 13:36, Moritz Angermann wrote:

I am in support of this proposal. I do not believe that beating this any further will result in any meaningful improvement. As I’ve learned in other discussions the word Experimental means different things to different people. The proposal does call out some extensions as experimental, but does not list LT although to me it’s one of the most prominent examples.

In any case having some guiding flow around extensions is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

Best, Moritz

On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 8:04 PM, Eric Seidel wrote:

...

I support this proposal.

Sent from my iPhone

...

On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry wrote:

I'm in favour. (And I'm willing to work on the necessary follow-up proposal to apply the categorisation to specific extensions.)

Cheers,

Adam

...

On 16/05/2024 09:27, Simon Peyton Jones wrote: Dear GHC Steering Committee Trevis Elser has submitted GHC Proposal #601 < https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601>to us for consideration. (It was originally drafted by David Christiansen, but Trevis took it over.) It proposes that that we classify extensions into four categories: * Stable * Experimental * Deprecated * Legacy It does not say which extensions are in which category (that's #635, still to come); it simply establishes the categories. *I strongly urge you to accept the proposal*. We have been using this language informally for years, and it's good to nail it down more precisely. There is plenty of discussion on the PR, but it's all about the specifics (e.g. do we want both Deprecated and Legacy; answer, yes). There seems to be a strong consensus around the principle. I don't expect this to be controversial. Please (everyone) can you respond within a week, by *end of day on Thursday 23 May. *Can you * Reply by email * Update the spreadsheet < https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e6GdwHmAjeDEUhTvP-b18MDkpTfH3SMHhFu5F3nDIWc/edit?usp=sharing>with your vote Thanks! Simon

-- Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/

Registered in England & Wales, OC335890 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England

_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org

https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee

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

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