[ghc-steering-committee] Question about "Add Unified Namespace" (#270)

[Eric Seidel]

Agreed, I think we can commit it at this point.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, at 05:47, Richard Eisenberg wrote:
> Support seems quite positive on that. I think we can commit. (There's 
> not really a shepherd here because it's all internal.)
> 
> > On Oct 16, 2019, at 10:36 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > 
> > This is covered in my still-pending PR
> > https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/271
> > in exactly the way Richard describes.
> > 
> > Can we commit it?  It's been pending for ages.  But NB: it's not just typography and presentation: it has actual content.
> > 
> > Simon
> > 
> > |  -----Original Message-----
> > |  From: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee-bounces at haskell.org>
> > |  On Behalf Of Richard Eisenberg
> > |  Sent: 15 October 2019 22:08
> > |  To: Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
> > |  Cc: ghc-steering-committee <ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> > |  Subject: Re: [ghc-steering-committee] Question about "Add Unified
> > |  Namespace" (#270)
> > |  
> > |  My interpretation is that as soon as discussion (that might change the
> > |  content of the proposal) picks up, the proposal should go back into the
> > |  discussion state. It's not good for us to have "pending recommendation"
> > |  for a long time.
> > |  
> > |  Richard
> > |  
> > |  > On Oct 15, 2019, at 7:37 PM, Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatchki at gmail.com>
> > |  wrote:
> > |  >
> > |  > Hello,
> > |  >
> > |  > I am the shepherd for #270, "Add Unified Namesapce", which was
> > |  > submitted for us to review around September 25.   I read the proposal
> > |  > when it was submitted, but pretty much since then there has been
> > |  > continuing discussion with various new ideas being fleshed out.
> > |  >
> > |  > So, I've been waiting for things to stabilize a bit, before I re-read
> > |  > it, and ask for feedback from the committee.   Given that it has been
> > |  > about 3 weeks, and there are still more comments and suggestions, I
> > |  > was wondering if it would be appropriate to move it back to the
> > |  > "discussion" phase,
> > |  > or if we should leave things as they are and keep waiting.
> > |  >
> > |  > Thoughts?
> > |  >
> > |  > -Iavor
> > |  > _______________________________________________
> > |  > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>