Hi committee, the proposal process has become pretty popular, and it seems we are having trouble keeping up. There are a few proposals that needs shepherding … so please check if you are expected to make a recommendation or, if you have, if the discussion needs more guidance or can be closed. Since the last status update, we * were asked to review these proposals: - Provenance-Qualified Package Imports (Shepherd: Ben) - Quantified Constraints (Shepherd: Richard) - Kinds Without Promotion (Shepherd: Ryan) - DH quantifiers (Shepherd: me) - Top-level kind signatures (Shepherd: Roman) - Resurrect PatternSignatures (Shepherd: Chis) - forall {k} (Shepherd: Iavor) * got a recommendation from shepherds about: - :kind!! (accept) - Treat kind and type vars identically with `forall` (accept) - Binding existential type variables (reject) - Quantified Constraints (accept) * decided about the following proposals - :kind!! (needs revision) - Quantified Constraints (accept) - Source plugins (accept) - plugin recompilation avoidance (accepted, but proposal needs to be updated) - DH quantifiers (punted, now dormant) We currently have to act on the following 14 proposals, which is 2 more than a the time of the last the last status mail. Deriving Via https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/120 Shepherd: Joachim Status: Acceptance recommended Resurrect PatternSignatures https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/119 Shepherd: Chris Status: Waiting for recommendation. Provenance-Qualified Package Imports https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Shepherd: Ben Status: Waiting for recommendation. Define Kinds Without Promotion https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/106 Shepherd: Ryan Status: Waiting for recommendation. kind and type vars https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/103 Shepherd: SPJ Status: Discussion ongoing forall {x}, https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/99 Shepherd: Iavor Status: Waiting for recommendation. Binding existential variables https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/96 Shepherd: Roman Status: Roman recommends to reject. Very active discussion going on, with an alternative proposal in #126. Embrace Type-In-Type https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 Shepherd: Iavor Status: We made progress. Iavor, Richard, do we have consensus now? Visible dependent quantification (TL;DR: forall k -> k -> *) https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/81 Shepherd: Roman Leshchinskiy Status: With #102 punted, discussion can and should start again. Top-level kinds signatures https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/54 Shepherd: Roman Leshchinskiy Status: Waiting for recommendation. Or-Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Status: This is lingering since last July! Constraint vs. Type https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/32 Shepherd: Simon PJS (proposed acceptance) Status: Simon’s proposal was met with silence. Ergo accept? Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Inconclusive discussion that fell silent, but not the clear consensus that I’d like. Ryan, what is the status here? Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
What about #83: Embrace Type:Type
I proposed acceptance in my email of 17th April (attached), but no one has responded.
I've added the payload of the email to the Github trail as well.
Let's get this done. Do we even have a shepherd?
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 24.04.2018, 20:53 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
What about #83: Embrace Type:Type
I proposed acceptance in my email of 17th April (attached), but no one has responded.
that proposal saw some active discussion as recently as last Tuesday.
Let's get this done. Do we even have a shepherd?
Of course we do. If you scroll down the list in the status mail, I wrote. Embrace Type-In-Type https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 Shepherd: Iavor Status: We made progress. Iavor, Richard, do we have consensus now? Clearly we need to wrap up a few proposals, when the status mail becomes so large that it fails to give the overview it should give… Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
| Of course we do. If you scroll down the list in the status mail, I
| wrote.
Oh, sorry, my fault... I became fixated on the initial compact list, and failed to scroll further.
I wonder if it'd be worth recording who the shepherd is somewhere easy to consult?
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee
Hi, Am Dienstag, den 24.04.2018, 21:20 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
Of course we do. If you scroll down the list in the status mail, I wrote.
Oh, sorry, my fault... I became fixated on the initial compact list, and failed to scroll further.
I wonder if it'd be worth recording who the shepherd is somewhere easy to consult?
the shepherd is also always the assignee of the github issue, so if you look at the top-right corner of https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 it lists yav as the assigneee. If the Github username is unknown to you you can click on it to see the profile with the full name. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
| the shepherd is also always the assignee of the github issue, so if you
| look at the top-right corner of
| https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83
| it lists yav as the assigneee. If the Github username is unknown to you
| you can click on it to see the profile with the full name.
I didn't know that -- cool.
Is it easy to show that info on the "list of propsoals under review" page?
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+lab...
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee
Hi Simon,
we cannot change that table, but as it happens the picture on the far right off each row is the avatar of the assignee, i.e. the shepherd. Less useful than a name, but after a while one recognizes the usual suspects :-)
Joachim
Am 24. April 2018 17:38:02 GMT-04:00 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones
| the shepherd is also always the assignee of the github issue, so if you | look at the top-right corner of | https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 | it lists yav as the assigneee. If the Github username is unknown to you | you can click on it to see the profile with the full name.
I didn't know that -- cool.
Is it easy to show that info on the "list of propsoals under review" page? https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+lab...
Simon
| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee
On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 24 April 2018 22:30 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Status | | Hi, | | Am Dienstag, den 24.04.2018, 21:20 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: | > > Of course we do. If you scroll down the list in the status mail, I | > > wrote. | > | > Oh, sorry, my fault... I became fixated on the initial compact list, | and failed to scroll further. | > | > I wonder if it'd be worth recording who the shepherd is somewhere easy | to consult? | | the shepherd is also always the assignee of the github issue, so if you | look at the top-right corner of | https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 | it lists yav as the assigneee. If the Github username is unknown to you | you can click on it to see the profile with the full name. | | Cheers, | Joachim | | -- | Joachim Breitner | mail@joachim-breitner.de | http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Hi all,
I was just trying to catch up on the GHC proposals, and I am afraid that
I've gotten a bit lost among all the e-mails in my inbox. Given that we
have quite a bit of traffic, perhaps we should have the committee
discussions somewhere online (e.g., git-hub), as it would be quite a bit
easier to catch up if everything is one place. Thoughts? Perhaps, I
should be better at organizing my inbox, but I guess I'm not :-)
-Iavor
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 4:28 PM Joachim Breitner
Hi Simon,
we cannot change that table, but as it happens the picture on the far right off each row is the avatar of the assignee, i.e. the shepherd. Less useful than a name, but after a while one recognizes the usual suspects :-)
Joachim
Am 24. April 2018 17:38:02 GMT-04:00 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones < simonpj@microsoft.com>:
| the shepherd is also always the assignee of the github issue, so if you | look at the top-right corner of | https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 | it lists yav as the assigneee. If the Github username is unknown to you | you can click on it to see the profile with the full name.
I didn't know that -- cool.
Is it easy to show that info on the "list of propsoals under review" page?
https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+lab...
Simon
| -----Original Message----- | From: ghc-steering-committee
On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner | Sent: 24 April 2018 22:30 | To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org | Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Status | | Hi, | | Am Dienstag, den 24.04.2018, 21:20 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones: | > > Of course we do. If you scroll down the list in the status mail, I | > > wrote. | > | > Oh, sorry, my fault... I became fixated on the initial compact list, | and failed to scroll further. | > | > I wonder if it'd be worth recording who the shepherd is somewhere easy | to consult? | | the shepherd is also always the assignee of the github issue, so if you | look at the top-right corner of | https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 | it lists yav as the assigneee. If the Github username is unknown to you | you can click on it to see the profile with the full name. | | 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
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 25.04.2018, 00:30 +0000 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
I was just trying to catch up on the GHC proposals, and I am afraid that I've gotten a bit lost among all the e-mails in my inbox. Given that we have quite a bit of traffic, perhaps we should have the committee discussions somewhere online (e.g., git-hub), as it would be quite a bit easier to catch up if everything is one place. Thoughts? Perhaps, I should be better at organizing my inbox, but I guess I'm not :-)
if you just need to catch up and your mail client is not helpful enough, then the threaded view on https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2018-April/thread.... might provide a good alternative. There was a discussion of switching from email to Github earlier this year; see this thread: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2018-February/0003... but the conclusion of that thread is to stay with email. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Perhaps the proposal could somehow point to the committee thread (once it starts)? So that it was easy to start from one point and get to
* The rendered proposal
* The Github thread
* The committee discussion
?
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 25.04.2018, 07:41 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
Perhaps the proposal could somehow point to the committee thread (once it starts)? So that it was easy to start from one point and get to * The rendered proposal * The Github thread * The committee discussion
sure, the Shepherd (or anyone) is free to add a link to the committee thread. All of us, as “members” of the Github repository, can edit the text of the pull request. I am reluctant to commit to doing that everytime and always until it is clear that there is a persistent problem for us that is fixed that way. A smaller improvement might be to consistently include the pull request number in the subject of the thread that discusses it. That would certainly make my job of aggregating the status mails easier. I will add a note about that to the “Please review” mails. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Hi,
yes, I remember the thread, and at the time I also thought that e-mail
works well enough, but it seems that lately there's been a lot of activity
and I thought that it might be nice if there is a single place to read and
discuss things.
-Iavor
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 6:24 PM Joachim Breitner
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 25.04.2018, 00:30 +0000 schrieb Iavor Diatchki:
I was just trying to catch up on the GHC proposals, and I am afraid that I've gotten a bit lost among all the e-mails in my inbox. Given that we have quite a bit of traffic, perhaps we should have the committee discussions somewhere online (e.g., git-hub), as it would be quite a bit easier to catch up if everything is one place. Thoughts? Perhaps, I should be better at organizing my inbox, but I guess I'm not :-)
if you just need to catch up and your mail client is not helpful enough, then the threaded view on
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2018-April/thread.... might provide a good alternative.
There was a discussion of switching from email to Github earlier this year; see this thread:
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/2018-February/0003... but the conclusion of that thread is to stay with email.
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
What about
* #54 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/54
Top-level kind signatures (instead of CUSKs)
* #81 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/81
Syntax for visible dependent quantification
I have twice proposed acceptance, but no one has replied.
I think Roman is shepherd for #54, but #81 seems to be lost. Who is shepherding that?
I'd love to get these two done.
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee
Hi, if you scroll down my mail you’ll see that #54 is waiting for a recommendation by Roman, and #81 was stalled due to #102, and we can now pick that one up again. Cheers, Joachim Am Dienstag, den 24.04.2018, 20:58 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
What about
* #54 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/54 Top-level kind signatures (instead of CUSKs)
* #81 https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/81 Syntax for visible dependent quantification
I have twice proposed acceptance, but no one has replied.
I think Roman is shepherd for #54, but #81 seems to be lost. Who is shepherding that?
I'd love to get these two done.
Simon
-----Original Message----- From: ghc-steering-committee
On Behalf Of Joachim Breitner Sent: 24 April 2018 03:47 To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Status Hi committee,
the proposal process has become pretty popular, and it seems we are having trouble keeping up. There are a few proposals that needs shepherding … so please check if you are expected to make a recommendation or, if you have, if the discussion needs more guidance or can be closed.
Since the last status update, we * were asked to review these proposals: - Provenance-Qualified Package Imports (Shepherd: Ben) - Quantified Constraints (Shepherd: Richard) - Kinds Without Promotion (Shepherd: Ryan) - DH quantifiers (Shepherd: me) - Top-level kind signatures (Shepherd: Roman) - Resurrect PatternSignatures (Shepherd: Chis) - forall {k} (Shepherd: Iavor) * got a recommendation from shepherds about: - :kind!! (accept) - Treat kind and type vars identically with `forall` (accept) - Binding existential type variables (reject) - Quantified Constraints (accept) * decided about the following proposals - :kind!! (needs revision) - Quantified Constraints (accept) - Source plugins (accept) - plugin recompilation avoidance (accepted, but proposal needs to be updated) - DH quantifiers (punted, now dormant)
We currently have to act on the following 14 proposals, which is 2 more than a the time of the last the last status mail.
Deriving Via https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/120 Shepherd: Joachim Status: Acceptance recommended
Resurrect PatternSignatures https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/119 Shepherd: Chris Status: Waiting for recommendation.
Provenance-Qualified Package Imports https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 Shepherd: Ben Status: Waiting for recommendation.
Define Kinds Without Promotion https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/106 Shepherd: Ryan Status: Waiting for recommendation.
kind and type vars https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/103 Shepherd: SPJ Status: Discussion ongoing
forall {x}, https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/99 Shepherd: Iavor Status: Waiting for recommendation.
Binding existential variables https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/96 Shepherd: Roman Status: Roman recommends to reject. Very active discussion going on, with an alternative proposal in #126.
Embrace Type-In-Type https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/83 Shepherd: Iavor Status: We made progress. Iavor, Richard, do we have consensus now?
Visible dependent quantification (TL;DR: forall k -> k -> *) https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/81 Shepherd: Roman Leshchinskiy Status: With #102 punted, discussion can and should start again.
Top-level kinds signatures https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/54 Shepherd: Roman Leshchinskiy Status: Waiting for recommendation.
Or-Patterns https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/43 Shepherd: Manuel Status: Waiting for Manuel to make a recommendation
Lazy unboxed tuples https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35 Shepherd: Ryan Status: This is lingering since last July!
Constraint vs. Type https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/32 Shepherd: Simon PJS (proposed acceptance) Status: Simon’s proposal was met with silence. Ergo accept?
Mutable constructor fields https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/8 Shepherd: Ryan Newton Status: Inconclusive discussion that fell silent, but not the clear consensus that I’d like. Ryan, what is the status here?
Cheers, Joachim
-- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
Joachim
Could you possibly turn this email into a status report for the GHC-proposals process, here
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status/Apr18
We produce this status report every 6 months (here they are, going back 12 year https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status), and it'd be the perfect place for a status report on GHC proposals.
I've started a section for that purpose; might you fill it in?
I think a lot of people would be interested.
Thanks!
Simon
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ghc-steering-committee
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 25.04.2018, 15:11 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
Could you possibly turn this email into a status report for the GHC-proposals process, here https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status/Apr18
We produce this status report every 6 months (here they are, going back 12 year https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Status), and it'd be the perfect place for a status report on GHC proposals.
I've started a section for that purpose; might you fill it in?
I think a lot of people would be interested.
done. I am listing all accepted for now, since this is the first report there; in 6 months I will try to produce a useful delta. Cheers, Joachim -- Joachim Breitner mail@joachim-breitner.de http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
participants (3)
-
Iavor Diatchki -
Joachim Breitner -
Simon Peyton Jones