Another year has passed, and if we are serious with the idea that GHC20xx is a continuous thing, we should probably start defining GHC2023 – even if it is just a small delta.
Indeed, we originally said we'd review GHC20xx annually, but I think we
might want to consult the community to see if that is too often. There has
been an interesting thread
https://discourse.haskell.org/t/quo-vadis-ghc2023/5220on the Haskell
Discourse.
The HF Stability Working Group discussed this on Monday, and I think Tom
Ellis (a member of the SWG) is willing to lead a consultation. I think
that would be great -- we have no axe to grind here, and I think we'll be
delighted to do whatever makes the maximal number of people happy.
Tom (cc'd) will write with more info shortly. Sound OK?
Simon
On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 20:49, Joachim Breitner
Hi Committee,
when we defined the process for GHC20xx, as written in
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0372-gh... we wrote
Likely, the first iteration of this process will be vastly different from the following ones: The first one is expected to add a large number of uncontroversial extensions; so the next iteration will likely only make a smaller, but more controversial change.
Therefore, this proposal does not commit to a fixed cadence. Instead, 6 months after the first release of a version of GHC that supports a GHC20xx set, we evaluate the outcome, the process, and the perceived need of a next release. At that time we will refine the processes, if needed, and set a cadence.
The first version of GHC that supported GHC2021 was 9.2, released in October 2022.
Last fall we said that not enough time has passed to do such an evaluation, and we skipped defining GHC2022.
Another year has passed, and if we are serious with the idea that GHC20xx is a continuous thing, we should probably start defining GHC2023 – even if it is just a small delta. This e-mail tries to kickstart that process.
Last time we did a relative elaborate thing where we voted on essentially _every_ extension. I think that made sense for the first iteration, where we had to winddow down the likely extensions. But now we have a base line (GHC2021), and are asked to find a suitable delta, and I’d go for a nomination-based approach: Committee members can propose adding (or removing, in theory) specific extensions, and then we vote only on those. Does that sound reasonable?
Does anyone have any insight from the real world? Has GHC2021 helped our users? And if not, why not?
What kind of hard data would you like to see, if any?
(I’m a bit wary of spending too much time writing scripts to scrape hackage, for example to see which extensions people tend to enable _in addition_ to GHC2021, only to see that libraries on hackage are understandably slow to use default-language: GHC2021, as that’s not great for backward compat for now. But I am also not sure where to look for good data…)
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