Hi,

Have all core/boot library maintainers been notified to join that mailing list? Where is that information? I don't see it.

The only reason I got wind of this is because Hécate CCed the library ML as well.

I remain unconvinced that this is a good way of coordinating releases across 20+ maintainers.

Information that is necessary:

- what versions do YOU need?
- what versions do maintainers want to see in the next GHC release?
- do maintainers want a "backport" of a version bump to an older GHC branch?
- relationships between core libraries (that is the case for filepath)
- deadline

This could possibly be expressed in a shared spreadsheet, so that everyone understands the current status without going through mailing lists they're not subscribed to or issue trackers with 10+ posts.

Thanks,
Julian

On February 5, 2024 2:28:16 PM UTC, Ben Gamari <ben@well-typed.com> wrote:

Julian Ospald <hasufell@posteo.de> writes:

 Hi,

 I'm unsure what the process here is. Do you expect every boot library 
 maintainer to follow GHC issue tracker and comment there? Or to open a 
 PR against ghc repo? I definitely won't do the latter as an unpaid 
 volunteer (I don't want to deal with GHC MRs and CI).

We created the `ghc-releases` mailing list for the purpose of release
coordination. In the past I have also frequently created tracking
tickets in submodules' upstream repositories. I have not done that this
time as we have this mailing list but I would be happy to do so if this
would be preferable.

 For 'filepath' and 'unix' (and 'os-string', which is to become a boot 
 package) I'd prefer if you open issues on each issue tracker. If that is 
 too cumbersome, please link me to the place where I'm supposed to 
 comment and give me a deadline.

Sure, I will create a pair of tracking tickets. The proposed deadline is
before the second week in March.

Cheers,

- Ben