patch applied (packages/base): new Control.Category, ghc ticket #1773

[Ross Paterson]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 10:34:49AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
> The policy isn't completely clear at the moment with regard to library 
> proposals, so I think we should try to clarify.  Here are the options:
>
>  1. The proposer must validate proposed patches (probably not a good idea,
>     as time elapses between proposal and acceptance)
>
>  2. Whomever pushes the patch must validate first.
>
>  3. GHC forks all the boot libraries (we currently fork Cabal and
>     bytestring only), and validate is only required on patches to
>     GHC's fork.

I would favour a combination of 1 and 2, i.e. a "release candidate" model,
where the actual patch that will be committed is available for scrutiny
for some time before it is finally agreed.  That would lengthen the
consideration time, but I think that is also desirable.