<div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">
Then maybe we can send #601 back to revision (or reject it), and<br>
just cherry-pick the ideas that we care about?
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">Let's ask Trevis and Chris, the other two co-authors. There is significant interaction with #620. For example, #620 lets you warn on a use of GADTs, whereas #601 lets you warn simply about the presence of -XGADTs flag. (I am pretty doubtful about the utility of having both.)</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">I am pretty keen on at least establishing a Stable/Experimental distinction. I'm agnostic about how many other categories, if any, to establish.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">
The “Stability Goals†document is a bit more than just goals, it’s<br>
actually a pretty clear policy.... But yes, we could ratify them and put<br>
them somewhere useful. But why not the GHC documentation?
</div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">I advocate for incorporating them in the GHC Steering Committee process, not GHC documentation, because the rules GR1-3 primarily cover decisions of the GHC Steering Committee. That is, what changes do we accept? For example, we might be more willing to accept a breaking change to an Experimental feature than a Stable one.</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif" class="gmail_default">Simon<br></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 08:57, Joachim Breitner <<a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Am Sonntag, dem 05.11.2023 um 23:03 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:<br>
> It would be good to get some of this decided.<br>
<br>
Agreed!<br>
<br>
>  Too much is in the air at the moment! Personally I think:<br>
> Â * We can agree at least the Stable/Experimental part of #601<br>
>  * The Stability Goals seem fairly uncontroversial. Shall we just make it part of the GHC Proposal process documentation<br>
> Â * #620 is new; your views would be welcome<br>
> Â * The approach to #617 may depend on the outcome of #620.<br>
<br>
#601 has more categories than Stable/Experimental, and an enforcement<br>
mechanism, which seems to be subsumed by #617 and/or #620, is that<br>
right? Then maybe we can send #601 back to revision (or reject it), and<br>
just cherry-pick the ideas that we care about?<br>
<br>
The “Stability Goals†document is a bit more than just goals, it’s<br>
actually a pretty clear policy with rules that sound like fresh long<br>
distance hiking trails (GR…). But yes, we could ratify them and put<br>
them somewhere useful. But why not the GHC documentation? The<br>
guarantees written down there, and the definition of “stable packageâ€<br>
are relevant to the users, not just those writing proposals.<br>
<br>
Agreed with parting #670 until #620 is done.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Joachim<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Joachim Breitner<br>
 <a href="mailto:mail@joachim-breitner.de" target="_blank">mail@joachim-breitner.de</a><br>
 <a href="http://www.joachim-breitner.de/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.joachim-breitner.de/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ghc-steering-committee mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org" target="_blank">ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee</a><br>
</blockquote></div>