Re: Why base library changes are only discussed on GHC issue tracker and not on the libraries@ list?

I (chessai) am the current maintainer for base. On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 12:41 Oleg Grenrus wrote:

As I understood from the https://wiki.haskell.org/Library_submissions page (to which GHC wiki links from https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/contributing#contributing-to-ghc), this job of elevating issue to the CLC is the job of a library maintainer. So I repeat my question: who are the current maintainer(s) of base library to make these calls.

I'd like to know whom comments I can and cannot ignore when proposing changes, as everyone has an opinion on how base should be (myself including).

- Oleg On 7.7.2021 20.35, Carter Schonwald wrote:

Respectfully: some of us like mailing lists for complicated discussions :)

The issue here is deviation from processs that support a wider range of participants with different accessibility needs and varying levels of volunteer time.

More over, a mailing list is easier for curious parties to subscribe to and filter to a dedicated inbox. Have you ever tried doing robust mailbox filters for GitHub or gitlab? It’s pretty tricky without creating a firehose of all repo events unless you’re in a group that’s always tagged.

Any ticket tagged core libraries on gitlab needs to have a corresponding email to this list for folks who aren’t administratively in that notification group. Or needs to link to a thread here motivating it.

I’m on that notification list for gitlab because current clc folks wanted me to continue helping out, but that’s not a scalable open participation model.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:41 PM Sandy Maguire wrote:

...

At risk of being the messenger who gets shot....

As an outsider, it seems very reasonable to me to file a bug against the issue tracker for a project whose code I think should be changed. For better or worse, this is the way that 99% of software projects work. Expecting everyone in the community to know that they _shouldn't_ be filing bugs against the issue tracker is a losing battle. I'm more hooked in than most, and even I didn't know this.

I can empathize with things not being done the way you'd like to be, but the claim that things happening on the GHC tracker are done "in private" is silly. The gitlab tracker is 10x more accessible, and the lack of community engagement on the mailing lists speaks volumes.

And besides, nobody wants to be on a mailing list anyway. It's a terrible experience with weird branching and no persistence, and while there are archives, it's an extremely unpleasant thing to try to spelunk through.

Best, Sandy

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:52 AM Henning Thielemann < lemming@henning-thielemann.de> wrote:

...

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, Oleg Grenrus wrote:

...

For example

- https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20044 ByteArray migration from primitive to base - https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20027 Changing Show String behavior

Why they are discussed "in private", I thought libraries@ list is where such changes should be discussed.

I think so, too, and I missed them as well. _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing listLibraries@haskell.orghttp://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries