Bardur Arantsson
On 04/14/2016 08:17 PM, Austin Seipp wrote:
Here's a question, on top of this one: why don't we require template-haskell changes for most corresponding syntax changes? We tend to play catch up with template-haskell sometimes and it's relatively strange. I mean, in some sense, we could have said a while back "This needs another revision, please add template haskell support" and avoided it all.
Richard has a better insight into this than I do, I'm sure, but it seems - to me, anyway - like template-haskell support is a reasonable bar for most surface-level syntax change to cross, before getting merged.
My intuition tells me that, most of the time, a lot of us simply forget to make the changes, or ask for them in reviews, and so it goes.
ISTM that this kind of thing could be reasonably handled by simply having a checklist for new functionality -- which includes TH support as a checkbox.
Indeed, I have a list that I try to check against while reviewing. I've put it up here [1] (and added checking for template-haskell support) although I agree that it would be nice if this were better integrated into the review process.
I'm sure others there are other frequently-forgotten-but-important things that people can think of to put into such a checklist.
(Not sure if GHC has a "Release" checklist, but I'd imagine one of those might also be useful.)
There is the MakingReleases page [2]. Cheers, - Ben [1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/WorkingConventions/PatchChecklist [2] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/MakingReleases