ross:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 12:50:14PM +1000, Donald Bruce Stewart wrote:
Getting bogged down in fiddly details will just derail this effort. See here. Perfectionists will not be tolerated! ;) http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/Protect_the_community [...] So, I propose we start with just, say, 'connect', with some QC properties, and get that into base, before we get dragged out into a big discussion about the entire api design.
I don't care much about this particular case, but we really need a better way of handling interface changes than this. We don't want proposals to rot, but changes to basic interfaces also need thorough consideration. At present, unless a proposal meets with a chorus of approval, the only way to get a decision is from SimonM or unilateral action by some committer. That needs to change, I think.
Agreed. At least a method by which proposals get Trac tickets and then due consideration (though avoiding voting would be nice). Any suggestions?
BTW, I find that "Protecting the community from poisonous people" stuff incongruously negative compared with my experiences on the Haskell mailing lists. There are some positive suggestions in there; let's focus on those, rather than the witch hunting.
Oh yes, it's nothing to do with the Haskell community at all! These were notes from the Subversion community, that I took down at the Google Summit last week. The Haskell community seems to function a _lot_ better :) There are some useful hints there though. -- Don