From a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com Thu May 4 18:39:59 2023 From: a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com (Artem Pelenitsyn) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 14:39:59 -0400 Subject: Code Review in Cabal Project Message-ID: Dear Cabal team, I have a couple points on the multiple components PR (https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/8726) drama. I didn't want to spend everyone's time during the meeting, and you can decide if you want to hear more about it now. The whole discussion on the meeting (with one exception) sounded to me like we're scolding Francesco (@fgaz). I feel bad because of that. Hence my email. By the way, one exception imo is Mikolaj saying that the whole story is his responsibility too. Thank you Mikolaj! I should say that me commenting on red CI probably added to the heat that was already there, and therefore it's also my responsibility. I'm sorry that the contributor got frustrated. That said, I want to say a big THANK YOU to Francesco. You left high-quality feedback, that myself (and I think others) can learn from. I personally lack the kind of expertise that you applied when doing this review. Please, do this more often! (time permitting, of course) People keep asking (1) why this happened (contributor throwing hands in the air and seemingly abandoning PR) and how to avoid this in the future (2). I don't feel qualified to answer (1), and I think no one should try to play contributor's therapist (unless, of course, you have the education and licence for that). I don't believe any professional boundaries were crossed or something unreasonable happened. Not from Cabal team's (including Francesco) side, at least. All the requests were fair and polite requests advocating for improving quality of Cabal's code base -- the very code base we interact a lot with, and quality of which we should try to improve. My answer to (2) -- you won't be able to avoid it in the future. Unless, of course, you are willing to abolish the code review process altogether. It really depends on a contributor and whether they are able to sustain the scrutiny of the process. And you can't control that. The response shouldn't be to lower the bar for the process imo. It is my opinion that the biggest improvement to the future of Cabal would be to get more high-quality feedback for contributions, not less. Thank you, Francesco, again! -- Kind Regards, Artem -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hecate at haskell.foundation Thu May 4 19:09:39 2023 From: hecate at haskell.foundation (=?UTF-8?Q?Theophile_H=C3=A9cate_Choutri?=) Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 21:09:39 +0200 Subject: Code Review in Cabal Project In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Artem, and thank you for the email. Yes, thank you very much Francesco, the feedback you left certainly avoided a lot of pain, and you contributed to maintain this patch up to standards. Regarding the "why" and the "how not to reproduce this", interactions that leave a sour taste in the mouth are pretty much inevitable in the messy business of human interactions. Shit happens, the best we can do is reflect on it and do what is in our power to improve what we can. But it is true that remote communication, by text, leaves much in terms of nuance and interactivity. Again, thank you Francesco. On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 20:40, Artem Pelenitsyn wrote: > Dear Cabal team, > > I have a couple points on the multiple components PR > (https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/8726) drama. I didn't want to spend > everyone's time during the meeting, and you can decide if you want to hear > more > about it now. > > The whole discussion on the meeting (with one exception) sounded to me > like we're > scolding Francesco (@fgaz). I feel bad because of that. Hence my email. By > the > way, one exception imo is Mikolaj saying that the whole story is his > responsibility too. Thank you Mikolaj! I should say that me commenting on > red CI > probably added to the heat that was already there, and therefore it's also > my > responsibility. I'm sorry that the contributor got frustrated. > > That said, I want to say a big THANK YOU to Francesco. You left > high-quality > feedback, that myself (and I think others) can learn from. I personally > lack the > kind of expertise that you applied when doing this review. Please, do this > more > often! (time permitting, of course) > > People keep asking (1) why this happened (contributor throwing hands in > the air > and seemingly abandoning PR) and how to avoid this in the future (2). > > I don't feel qualified to answer (1), and I think no one should try to play > contributor's therapist (unless, of course, you have the education and > licence > for that). I don't believe any professional boundaries were crossed or > something > unreasonable happened. Not from Cabal team's (including Francesco) side, at > least. All the requests were fair and polite requests advocating for > improving > quality of Cabal's code base -- the very code base we interact a lot with, > and > quality of which we should try to improve. > > My answer to (2) -- you won't be able to avoid it in the future. Unless, of > course, you are willing to abolish the code review process altogether. It > really > depends on a contributor and whether they are able to sustain the scrutiny > of > the process. And you can't control that. The response shouldn't be to > lower the > bar for the process imo. > > It is my opinion that the biggest improvement to the future of Cabal would > be to > get more high-quality feedback for contributions, not less. Thank you, > Francesco, again! > > -- > Kind Regards, Artem > > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emilypi at cohomolo.gy Thu May 4 21:31:45 2023 From: emilypi at cohomolo.gy (Emily Pillmore) Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 21:31:45 +0000 Subject: Code Review in Cabal Project In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just to pile on, I read the conversation and thank you Francesco for giving complete and meaningful feedback instead of throwing in the towel on such a large PR. I don't think there's any general means of making sure that contributors have a smooth contribution experience, but in this case, one thing I'd point to is the sheer size of the PR. As rightfully mentioned by (I believe it was?) Francesco, there are 3 distinct ideas at play, and some were implemented without the contributor knowing the full consequences of making their changes. Had he been asked to split his PR up into digestible, *separate* PRs, I think this may have gone smoother and feedback churn on each component would be kept minimal. When people contribute very large PRs like this, they often drag on and defeat the user's desire to follow them through because they can't get little wins out of the process. There is an upper bound to people's personal tolerance level when it comes to critique. There's a bit of "know thyself" inherent in the process, but we can also ask users at the outset to split Very Big Contributions up as much as possible. Anyway, sorry I couldn't make the Cabal thing - I have a standup now at exactly that time. If we offset by a week, I'd be able to make all of them. Cheers, Emily On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 1:09 PM, Theophile Hécate Choutri < cabal-devel at haskell.org > wrote: > > Hi Artem, and thank you for the email. > > > Yes, thank you very much Francesco, the feedback you left certainly > avoided a lot of pain, and you contributed to maintain this patch up to > standards. > > > Regarding the "why" and the "how not to reproduce this", interactions that > leave a sour taste in the mouth are pretty much inevitable in the messy > business of human interactions. Shit happens, the best we can do is > reflect on it and do what is in our power to improve what we can. > > But it is true that remote communication, by text, leaves much in terms of > nuance and interactivity. > > > Again, thank you Francesco. > > > On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 20:40, Artem Pelenitsyn < a. pelenitsyn@ gmail. com ( > a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com ) > wrote: > > >> Dear Cabal team, >> >> I have a couple points on the multiple components PR >> ( https:/ / github. com/ haskell/ cabal/ pull/ 8726 ( >> https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/8726 ) ) drama. I didn't want to >> spend >> everyone's time during the meeting, and you can decide if you want to hear >> more >> about it now. >> >> The whole discussion on the meeting (with one exception) sounded to me >> like we're >> scolding Francesco (@fgaz). I feel bad because of that. Hence my email. By >> the >> way, one exception imo is Mikolaj saying that the whole story is his >> responsibility too. Thank you Mikolaj! I should say that me commenting on >> red CI >> probably added to the heat that was already there, and therefore it's also >> my >> responsibility. I'm sorry that the contributor got frustrated. >> >> That said, I want to say a big THANK YOU to Francesco. You left >> high-quality >> feedback, that myself (and I think others) can learn from. I personally >> lack the >> kind of expertise that you applied when doing this review. Please, do this >> more >> often! (time permitting, of course) >> >> People keep asking (1) why this happened (contributor throwing hands in >> the air >> and seemingly abandoning PR) and how to avoid this in the future (2). >> >> I don't feel qualified to answer (1), and I think no one should try to >> play >> contributor's therapist (unless, of course, you have the education and >> licence >> for that). I don't believe any professional boundaries were crossed or >> something >> unreasonable happened. Not from Cabal team's (including Francesco) side, >> at >> least. All the requests were fair and polite requests advocating for >> improving >> quality of Cabal's code base -- the very code base we interact a lot with, >> and >> quality of which we should try to improve. >> >> My answer to (2) -- you won't be able to avoid it in the future. Unless, >> of >> course, you are willing to abolish the code review process altogether. It >> really >> depends on a contributor and whether they are able to sustain the scrutiny >> of >> the process. And you can't control that. The response shouldn't be to >> lower the >> bar for the process imo. >> >> It is my opinion that the biggest improvement to the future of Cabal would >> be to >> get more high-quality feedback for contributions, not less. Thank you, >> Francesco, again! >> >> >> -- >> Kind Regards, Artem >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cabal-devel mailing list >> cabal-devel@ haskell. org ( cabal-devel at haskell.org ) >> http:/ / mail. haskell. org/ cgi-bin/ mailman/ listinfo/ cabal-devel ( >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel ) >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel@ haskell. org ( cabal-devel at haskell.org ) > http:/ / mail. haskell. org/ cgi-bin/ mailman/ listinfo/ cabal-devel ( > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel ) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com Sun May 7 14:48:04 2023 From: a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com (Artem Pelenitsyn) Date: Sun, 7 May 2023 10:48:04 -0400 Subject: Code Review in Cabal Project In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey Emily, Thank you for your perspective. Also, > I have a standup now at exactly that time. If we offset by a week, I'd be able to make all of them. I'd be down to shift one week forward/backward. Last meeting was particularly long (longer than an hour), with a guest speaker on Manual QA and12 people at the pick. We only managed to discuss couple topics... In particular, we didn't quite discussed 3.10.2, and what needs to happen for the release to appear. So, i think it'd make sense to have a meeting next week. But I'm fine with shifting the other direction if people think that would be better. -- Best, Artem On Thu, May 4, 2023, 5:31 PM Emily Pillmore wrote: > Just to pile on, I read the conversation and thank you Francesco for > giving complete and meaningful feedback instead of throwing in the towel on > such a large PR. I don't think there's any general means of making sure > that contributors have a smooth contribution experience, but in this case, > one thing I'd point to is the sheer size of the PR. > > As rightfully mentioned by (I believe it was?) Francesco, there are 3 > distinct ideas at play, and some were implemented without the contributor > knowing the full consequences of making their changes. Had he been asked to > split his PR up into digestible, *separate* PRs, I think this may have gone > smoother and feedback churn on each component would be kept minimal. When > people contribute very large PRs like this, they often drag on and defeat > the user's desire to follow them through because they can't get little wins > out of the process. There is an upper bound to people's personal tolerance > level when it comes to critique. There's a bit of "know thyself" inherent > in the process, but we can also ask users at the outset to split Very Big > Contributions up as much as possible. > > Anyway, sorry I couldn't make the Cabal thing - I have a standup now at > exactly that time. If we offset by a week, I'd be able to make all of them. > > Cheers, > Emily > > > On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 1:09 PM, Theophile Hécate Choutri < > cabal-devel at haskell.org> wrote: > >> Hi Artem, and thank you for the email. >> >> Yes, thank you very much Francesco, the feedback you left certainly >> avoided a lot of pain, and you contributed to maintain this patch up to >> standards. >> >> Regarding the "why" and the "how not to reproduce this", interactions >> that leave a sour taste in the mouth are pretty much inevitable in the >> messy business of human interactions. Shit happens, the best we can do is >> reflect on it and do what is in our power to improve what we can. >> But it is true that remote communication, by text, leaves much in terms >> of nuance and interactivity. >> >> Again, thank you Francesco. >> >> On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 20:40, Artem Pelenitsyn >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Cabal team, >>> >>> I have a couple points on the multiple components PR >>> (https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/8726) drama. I didn't want to >>> spend >>> everyone's time during the meeting, and you can decide if you want to >>> hear more >>> about it now. >>> >>> The whole discussion on the meeting (with one exception) sounded to me >>> like we're >>> scolding Francesco (@fgaz). I feel bad because of that. Hence my email. >>> By the >>> way, one exception imo is Mikolaj saying that the whole story is his >>> responsibility too. Thank you Mikolaj! I should say that me commenting >>> on red CI >>> probably added to the heat that was already there, and therefore it's >>> also my >>> responsibility. I'm sorry that the contributor got frustrated. >>> >>> That said, I want to say a big THANK YOU to Francesco. You left >>> high-quality >>> feedback, that myself (and I think others) can learn from. I personally >>> lack the >>> kind of expertise that you applied when doing this review. Please, do >>> this more >>> often! (time permitting, of course) >>> >>> People keep asking (1) why this happened (contributor throwing hands in >>> the air >>> and seemingly abandoning PR) and how to avoid this in the future (2). >>> >>> I don't feel qualified to answer (1), and I think no one should try to >>> play >>> contributor's therapist (unless, of course, you have the education and >>> licence >>> for that). I don't believe any professional boundaries were crossed or >>> something >>> unreasonable happened. Not from Cabal team's (including Francesco) side, >>> at >>> least. All the requests were fair and polite requests advocating for >>> improving >>> quality of Cabal's code base -- the very code base we interact a lot >>> with, and >>> quality of which we should try to improve. >>> >>> My answer to (2) -- you won't be able to avoid it in the future. Unless, >>> of >>> course, you are willing to abolish the code review process altogether. >>> It really >>> depends on a contributor and whether they are able to sustain the >>> scrutiny of >>> the process. And you can't control that. The response shouldn't be to >>> lower the >>> bar for the process imo. >>> >>> It is my opinion that the biggest improvement to the future of Cabal >>> would be to >>> get more high-quality feedback for contributions, not less. Thank you, >>> Francesco, again! >>> >>> -- >>> Kind Regards, Artem >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cabal-devel mailing list >>> cabal-devel at haskell.org >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> cabal-devel mailing list >> cabal-devel at haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com Mon May 8 13:30:20 2023 From: a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com (Artem Pelenitsyn) Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 09:30:20 -0400 Subject: Code Review in Cabal Project In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mikolaj writes on IRC w.r.t. moving the meeting to the coming Thursday: > yes, that sounds fine, the only problem being that I can't edit the calendar invitation; I think Emily either can or should know who can > and while we are at it, we could synch time zone to the one used by the Haskell Foundation meetings, which I'm guessing may be London's time Also there, Hécate approves of it. -- Best, Artem On Sun, 7 May 2023 at 10:48, Artem Pelenitsyn wrote: > Hey Emily, > > Thank you for your perspective. Also, > > > I have a standup now at exactly that time. If we offset by a week, I'd > be able to make all of them. > > I'd be down to shift one week forward/backward. Last meeting was > particularly long (longer than an hour), with a guest speaker on Manual QA > and12 people at the pick. We only managed to discuss couple topics... > > In particular, we didn't quite discussed 3.10.2, and what needs to happen > for the release to appear. So, i think it'd make sense to have a meeting > next week. But I'm fine with shifting the other direction if people think > that would be better. > > -- > Best, Artem > > On Thu, May 4, 2023, 5:31 PM Emily Pillmore wrote: > >> Just to pile on, I read the conversation and thank you Francesco for >> giving complete and meaningful feedback instead of throwing in the towel on >> such a large PR. I don't think there's any general means of making sure >> that contributors have a smooth contribution experience, but in this case, >> one thing I'd point to is the sheer size of the PR. >> >> As rightfully mentioned by (I believe it was?) Francesco, there are 3 >> distinct ideas at play, and some were implemented without the contributor >> knowing the full consequences of making their changes. Had he been asked to >> split his PR up into digestible, *separate* PRs, I think this may have gone >> smoother and feedback churn on each component would be kept minimal. When >> people contribute very large PRs like this, they often drag on and defeat >> the user's desire to follow them through because they can't get little wins >> out of the process. There is an upper bound to people's personal tolerance >> level when it comes to critique. There's a bit of "know thyself" inherent >> in the process, but we can also ask users at the outset to split Very Big >> Contributions up as much as possible. >> >> Anyway, sorry I couldn't make the Cabal thing - I have a standup now at >> exactly that time. If we offset by a week, I'd be able to make all of them. >> >> Cheers, >> Emily >> >> >> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 1:09 PM, Theophile Hécate Choutri < >> cabal-devel at haskell.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Artem, and thank you for the email. >>> >>> Yes, thank you very much Francesco, the feedback you left certainly >>> avoided a lot of pain, and you contributed to maintain this patch up to >>> standards. >>> >>> Regarding the "why" and the "how not to reproduce this", interactions >>> that leave a sour taste in the mouth are pretty much inevitable in the >>> messy business of human interactions. Shit happens, the best we can do is >>> reflect on it and do what is in our power to improve what we can. >>> But it is true that remote communication, by text, leaves much in terms >>> of nuance and interactivity. >>> >>> Again, thank you Francesco. >>> >>> On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 20:40, Artem Pelenitsyn >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Cabal team, >>>> >>>> I have a couple points on the multiple components PR >>>> (https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/8726) drama. I didn't want to >>>> spend >>>> everyone's time during the meeting, and you can decide if you want to >>>> hear more >>>> about it now. >>>> >>>> The whole discussion on the meeting (with one exception) sounded to me >>>> like we're >>>> scolding Francesco (@fgaz). I feel bad because of that. Hence my email. >>>> By the >>>> way, one exception imo is Mikolaj saying that the whole story is his >>>> responsibility too. Thank you Mikolaj! I should say that me commenting >>>> on red CI >>>> probably added to the heat that was already there, and therefore it's >>>> also my >>>> responsibility. I'm sorry that the contributor got frustrated. >>>> >>>> That said, I want to say a big THANK YOU to Francesco. You left >>>> high-quality >>>> feedback, that myself (and I think others) can learn from. I personally >>>> lack the >>>> kind of expertise that you applied when doing this review. Please, do >>>> this more >>>> often! (time permitting, of course) >>>> >>>> People keep asking (1) why this happened (contributor throwing hands in >>>> the air >>>> and seemingly abandoning PR) and how to avoid this in the future (2). >>>> >>>> I don't feel qualified to answer (1), and I think no one should try to >>>> play >>>> contributor's therapist (unless, of course, you have the education and >>>> licence >>>> for that). I don't believe any professional boundaries were crossed or >>>> something >>>> unreasonable happened. Not from Cabal team's (including Francesco) >>>> side, at >>>> least. All the requests were fair and polite requests advocating for >>>> improving >>>> quality of Cabal's code base -- the very code base we interact a lot >>>> with, and >>>> quality of which we should try to improve. >>>> >>>> My answer to (2) -- you won't be able to avoid it in the future. >>>> Unless, of >>>> course, you are willing to abolish the code review process altogether. >>>> It really >>>> depends on a contributor and whether they are able to sustain the >>>> scrutiny of >>>> the process. And you can't control that. The response shouldn't be to >>>> lower the >>>> bar for the process imo. >>>> >>>> It is my opinion that the biggest improvement to the future of Cabal >>>> would be to >>>> get more high-quality feedback for contributions, not less. Thank you, >>>> Francesco, again! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kind Regards, Artem >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> cabal-devel mailing list >>>> cabal-devel at haskell.org >>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cabal-devel mailing list >>> cabal-devel at haskell.org >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel >>> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.trstenjak at gmail.com Sun May 14 16:52:37 2023 From: daniel.trstenjak at gmail.com (Daniel Trstenjak) Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 18:52:37 +0200 Subject: Data constructor of VersionIntervals not exported Message-ID: <20230514165237.GA4849@octa> Hi, I'm trying to update my tool cabal-bounds[1] to the newest version of the Cabal library. My tool needs to convert a [VersionInterval] into a VersionRange, which currently doesn't seem to be possible, because the data constructor of VersionIntervals isn't exported from Distribution.Types.VersionInterval. Best regards, Daniel Trstenjak [1] https://github.com/dan-t/cabal-bounds From a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com Sun May 14 17:49:22 2023 From: a.pelenitsyn at gmail.com (Artem Pelenitsyn) Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 13:49:22 -0400 Subject: Data constructor of VersionIntervals not exported In-Reply-To: <20230514165237.GA4849@octa> References: <20230514165237.GA4849@octa> Message-ID: Hey Daniel! Thanks for your interest to Cabal! I don't see a reason to not add the import. If you submit a PR, that probably could appear in Cabal 3.12. A meta comment: questions like this may be better served at Cabal's bug tracker on GitHub. -- Kind regards, Artem On Sun, May 14, 2023, 12:52 PM Daniel Trstenjak wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to update my tool cabal-bounds[1] to the newest version of > the Cabal library. > > My tool needs to convert a [VersionInterval] into a VersionRange, which > currently doesn't seem to be possible, because the data constructor > of VersionIntervals isn't exported from Distribution.Types.VersionInterval. > > > Best regards, > Daniel Trstenjak > > > [1] https://github.com/dan-t/cabal-bounds > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsf at seereason.com Tue May 16 00:53:27 2023 From: dsf at seereason.com (David Fox) Date: Mon, 15 May 2023 17:53:27 -0700 Subject: Data constructor of VersionIntervals not exported In-Reply-To: <20230514165237.GA4849@octa> References: <20230514165237.GA4849@octa> Message-ID: Isn't that `fromVersionIntervals . mkVersionIntervals`? On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 9:52 AM Daniel Trstenjak wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to update my tool cabal-bounds[1] to the newest version of > the Cabal library. > > My tool needs to convert a [VersionInterval] into a VersionRange, which > currently doesn't seem to be possible, because the data constructor > of VersionIntervals isn't exported from Distribution.Types.VersionInterval. > > > Best regards, > Daniel Trstenjak > > > [1] https://github.com/dan-t/cabal-bounds > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.trstenjak at gmail.com Tue May 16 06:15:39 2023 From: daniel.trstenjak at gmail.com (Daniel Trstenjak) Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 08:15:39 +0200 Subject: Data constructor of VersionIntervals not exported In-Reply-To: References: <20230514165237.GA4849@octa> Message-ID: <20230516061539.GA3956@octa> Hi David, > Isn't that `fromVersionIntervals . mkVersionIntervals`? 'mkVersionIntervals' is now only present in the module 'Distribution.Types.VersionInterval.Legacy'. But 'Distribution.Types.VersionInterval.Legacy' and 'Distribution.Types.VersionInterval' also contain incompatible type definitions of 'VersionInterval' and 'VersionIntervals'. Greetings, Daniel From fa-ml at ariis.it Thu May 18 18:06:04 2023 From: fa-ml at ariis.it (Francesco Ariis) Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 20:06:04 +0200 Subject: cabal-dev meeting schedule Message-ID: Hello everyone, at today cabal-dev meeting we talked about the proposal of shifting the fortnightly dev meeting by _one week_ [1], to accommodate more people (namely, Emily). Question: - would anyone else be affected (more likely/unlikely to join the meeting) with this date change? [1] so 25 May, 8 June, etc. instead of 18 may, 1 June, 15 June, etc. From hecate at haskell.foundation Thu May 18 20:13:45 2023 From: hecate at haskell.foundation (=?UTF-8?Q?Theophile_H=C3=A9cate_Choutri?=) Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 22:13:45 +0200 Subject: cabal-dev meeting schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Happy with the change, personally! On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 20:06, Francesco Ariis wrote: > Hello everyone, > > at today cabal-dev meeting we talked about the proposal of shifting the > fortnightly dev meeting by _one week_ [1], to accommodate more people > (namely, > Emily). > > Question: > - would anyone else be affected (more likely/unlikely to join the meeting) > with this date change? > > [1] so 25 May, 8 June, etc. instead of 18 may, 1 June, 15 June, etc. > > _______________________________________________ > cabal-devel mailing list > cabal-devel at haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: