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
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
I support this proposal. Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com> 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
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 <eric@seidel.io> wrote:
I support this proposal.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com> 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
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/635>is 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 <moritz.angermann@gmail.com> 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 <eric@seidel.io> wrote:
I support this proposal.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com> 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
Good for me. On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 14:43, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
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/635>is 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 <moritz.angermann@gmail.com> 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 <eric@seidel.io> wrote:
I support this proposal.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com> 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
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io.
I'm in favor On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 09:09, Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:
Good for me.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 14:43, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
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/635>is 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 < moritz.angermann@gmail.com> 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 <eric@seidel.io> wrote:
I support this proposal.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com> 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
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io. _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <http://mpg.is/>
I left a couple of clarifying questions on github, but I'm in support. On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 10:43 AM Matthías Páll Gissurarson <mpg@mpg.is> wrote:
I'm in favor
On Fri, 17 May 2024 at 09:09, Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack@tweag.io> wrote:
Good for me.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 14:43, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> wrote:
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/635>is 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 < moritz.angermann@gmail.com> 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 <eric@seidel.io> wrote:
I support this proposal.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2024, at 05:08, Adam Gundry <adam@well-typed.com> 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
_______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- Arnaud Spiwack Director, Research at https://moduscreate.com and https://tweag.io. _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <http://mpg.is/> _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
Dear Simon, Sebastian, Chris, Erik I don't think you have responded to my email below, not updated the spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e6GdwHmAjeDEUhTvP-b18MDkpTfH3SMHhFu5F3nDIWc/edit?usp=sharing>. Any particular reason? I don't want to accept the proposal if there are any strenuous objections. In the case of Erik and Sebastian it's possible that you have not been added correctly to the GHC Steering Committee mailing list, so I'm including your email addresses in the to: field Thanks Simon On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 09:27, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> 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
Hi Simon, (Indeed, I only registered an account for the mailing list without subscribing. Let's see if I receive this mail now.) I voted Accept as well. Cheers, Sebastian ------ Originalnachricht ------ Von "Simon Peyton Jones" <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> An "ghc-steering-committee" <ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org>; "Erik de Castro Lopo" <erik.de.castro.lopo@gmail.com>; "Sebastian Graf" <sgraf1337@gmail.com> Datum 27.05.2024 11:08:16 Betreff Re: Proposal #601: extension lifecycle
Dear Simon, Sebastian, Chris, Erik
I don't think you have responded to my email below, not updated the spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e6GdwHmAjeDEUhTvP-b18MDkpTfH3SMHhFu5F3nDIWc/edit?usp=sharing>. Any particular reason? I don't want to accept the proposal if there are any strenuous objections.
In the case of Erik and Sebastian it's possible that you have not been added correctly to the GHC Steering Committee mailing list, so I'm including your email addresses in the to: field
Thanks
Simon
On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 09:27, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> 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
Everyone is in favour -- I declare this proposal accepted Adam, could you merge, once Trevis says he has done any remaining changes? Simon On Thu, 16 May 2024 at 09:27, Simon Peyton Jones < simon.peytonjones@gmail.com> 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
participants (8)
-
Adam Gundry -
Arnaud Spiwack -
Eric Seidel -
Jakob Brünker -
Matthías Páll Gissurarson -
Moritz Angermann -
Sebastian Graf -
Simon Peyton Jones