Everything that the CLC has in the works that affects the Prelude already has been brought up most of the way to this standard, in that https://prime.haskell.org/wiki/Libraries/Proposals gives the summary of the resulting timeline with the outstanding proposals worked out in in a user facing manner. It doesn't enumerate the explicit actions the user should take at each step to build in whatever the 3 release compatible mode would be at any given point, however. Help on that front would be welcome. A few details change if the Simons choose to ultimately roll -Wcompat into -Wall, as the 3 Release Policy takes a bit of a hit, but the general timeline remains intact. My primary concern is that if we ask end users who put forth proposals for excruciating detail that considers everything in the 3 release policy, we limit ourselves to proposals that come from people already deeply familiar with the process. The current mindset is that if we do choose to adopt a proposal once the community has agreed to the broad strokes, we'll need to do what we can to raise it to this level and incorporate it into the roadmap. Currently we're doing so with respect to Prelude-affecting changes, but spreading this (or something weaker) out to the wider set of core libraries is something we could consider doing once we get a sense of how well it is working in practice, and if there is a general sense that the stability it brings outweighs the rather significant delays it imparts to the process. Keep in mind we already have plans that stretch out to GHC 8.6 as a consequence of the 3 Release Policy. Almost all significant changes will now take around 4 years to play out. Around the Prelude that seems about right. Around the rest of the core libraries that would likely become a rather significant pain point. -Edward On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ben Gamari wrote:

Joachim Breitner writes:

...

Hi,

...

In the case of the proposals currently on the roadmap [1] it can sometimes be rather tricky to determine exactly where each of these

Am Samstag, den 13.02.2016, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Ben Gamari: points

...

fall as the proposals tend to discuss implementation and leave the implications on the user implicit.

Did you see the example roadmap I created on https://prime.haskell.org/wiki/Libraries/3-Release-Policy

Ahh, indeed I did not. Thanks for the reference. That comes quite close to my example. Would it be possible to bring the active proposals up to this standard?

Cheers,

- Ben

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

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Ben Gamari wrote:

Edward Kmett writes:

I would love to pitch in however it doesn't seem that users outside of the committee have write access to wiki.

I'm pretty sure that Herbert can set you up with access. I'm more than willing to consent to that here from our side. Right. However, keep in mind that it's possible that the Three-Release

Policy may take a hit even if -Wcompat remains independent due to GHC's stance on -Wall stability.

That does indeed seem to be likely the case. We the committee can't control what GHC chooses to do in this regard. We extended the olive branch of the 3 release policy to those concerned that the rate of change was too high. I can say that from our perspective, having the goal of meeting such a policy has helped a great deal from a planning perspective. It took timelines from something completely arbitrary to something forced into a measured pace. To strain that metaphor, we'll prune branches off that branch as needed to accommodate the pressures on the committee from both sides. I do somewhat fear that if we fold -Wcompat into -Wall that at least pragmatically the 3 release policy will no longer really serve the needs of anyone. Really, my critique is mostly on the presentation of this information.

It's possible for a user to determine the implications of a given proposal with what is on the wiki currently, but it's not as easy as it could be.

Sure. We could definitely use help on the presentation side! -Edward