You want to change base. base release schedule is tied to GHC and is in fact part of its git tree: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/tree/master/libraries/base

By providing a clear patch with reasoning and motivation, you're reducing the possibility of bikeshedding.

ML is for bikeshedding and getting a picture of community opinion. I believe your patch doesn't require any of that. If the GHC team/CLC thinks so, they'll let you know on your PR.

My experience even with patches to core libraries is also mixed. Last time I tried to provide something as simple as forM to Data.Set. It took 1 year to even get to an actual review. Then the patch was 90% done, but failed because of the remaining 10% that the maintainers weren't able to make clear to me.

IMO, these days it's hard to get contributors anyway. I personally merge PRs even if they're just 80% done and fix the rest myself.

I don't expect there to be issues with base though. GHC developers are responsive.

On July 1, 2021 6:58:24 AM UTC, Ignat Insarov <kindaro@gmail.com> wrote:
 Pull request on ghc gitlab  and then link to it here for folks to review it.

 Grounded patches solve all sorts of ambiguity.  Having another proposal process doesn’t solve that. :)

Carter, I completely fail to understand any of your three sentences.

1. What does GHC have to do with any of this? I am talking about
proposals to core libraries, not GHC.
2. What is a grounded patch? What is the ambiguity you are talking about?
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries