Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Call for votes: Shall we have GHC2023

I vote we proceed with GHC2023. There are inconsistencies in GHC2021 that would be better to sort out sooner rather than later (e.g. the fact that GADTs snuck in through the back door, with GADTSyntax and ExistentialQuantification both included but neither GADTs nor MonoLocalBinds). That's entirely understandable, given that it was a first attempt at something new, but I don't see why we shouldn't make some small improvements in the next iteration. Adam On 23/01/2023 08:36, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:

I vote we wait until at least 2024.

Simon

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 at 12:40, Joachim Breitner mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de> wrote:

Hi Committee,

as ~threatened~ announced, I’m calling for a vote on whether we should proceed to define the next GHC20xx _now_, as GHC2023, or wait for a year.

Judging from the silence around the PR for GHC2023 I deduce that the appetite for GHC2023 is generally low, and will not bother you with complicated looking questions about which extensions might make GHC2023 worth it in an attempt to parallelize the “whether” with the “what”.

Instead, please cast your vote until Apri 5 (but preferrably earlier) on the question:

  Should we proceed towards GHC2023?

(If yay wins we’ll refine #559 and vote on that. If nay wins, I’ll stay quiet until next fall.)

I am intentionally not asking for a fixed cadence at this point. We have made but one release so far, and it seems presumptious to try to predict what makes most sense next year, or the next four years to come.

(I’ll follow up with my vote and justification separately.)

Cheers, Joachim

-- 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