[ghc-steering-committee] Need more Trac tickets

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

hmm, good point… ok, let’s stick to the `implemented::` header in the
proposal files to record the implementation status. We can eventually
source that and create nice reports.

Cheers,
Joachim


Am Samstag, den 02.06.2018, 15:48 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> Perhaps, but can we do that on a file in a repo? I thought labels were attached to PRs, which are somewhat historical once the proposal is accepted.
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > that sounds like we should use an “Implemented” label to clearly mark
> > implemented proposals?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Joachim
> > 
> > Am Samstag, den 02.06.2018, 15:37 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> > > This idea originally rose during a conversation where a collaborator was looking for proposals to implement. He had assumed that all proposals in the repo were unimplemented (otherwise, in his thinking, they weren't proposals anymore). In any case, we discovered that it's not easy to tell whether a proposal is implemented or not. If it can be assumed that all implemented proposals have tickets, then I suppose we're OK, as long as the proposal is updated with the ticket.
> > > 
> > > Richard
> > > 
> > > > On Jun 2, 2018, at 1:44 PM, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Am Dienstag, den 29.05.2018, 15:59 -0400 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> > > > > Ryan Scott very helpfully this morning labeled the Trac tickets that
> > > > > have grown from proposals. However, there remain a good many
> > > > > proposals without corresponding Trac tickets.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I propose that we make it a shepherd's responsibility to make sure
> > > > > that a Trac ticket is created upon the acceptance of a proposal.
> > > > > Specifically: a shepherd should encourage the proposer to make the
> > > > > Trac ticket, and if this fails to happen, then for the shepherd to do
> > > > > it himself. (Why have the proposer do it? 1. To lessen the burden on
> > > > > the shepherd. 2. To subtly encourage the proposer to ponder the
> > > > > possibility of implementing.)
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do we think? We'll still have to make tickets for those accepted
> > > > > proposals but with not tickets...
> > > > 
> > > > I am not too keen on additional red tape, and would rather leave the
> > > > process organically. If anyone, whether shepherd, proposer or anyone
> > > > else is attached enough to the proposal to create a ticket. If not,
> > > > then the proposal was probably a good but not very important idea, and
> > > > may – as far as I am concerned – stay in the “can be implemented
> > > > whenever someone feels like it” state eternally.
> > > > 
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Joachim
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > Joachim Breitner
> > > > mail at joachim-breitner.de
> > > > http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> > 
> > -- 
> > Joachim Breitner
> >  mail at joachim-breitner.de
> >  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> > ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> > https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20180602/bc15d20f/attachment.sig>