[ghc-steering-committee] GHC2023

[Arnaud Spiwack]

Empirically, I don't feel quite ready to make a call for GHC2023. So I
think that I'd favour a 3-year cadence.

On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 11:44, Joachim Breitner <mail at joachim-breitner.de>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 10.01.2023 um 10:31 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
> >
> > It seems a very funny way to do it.  I'd prefer to ask "what cadence
> > do we want" and then move on to discuss features individually.  At
> > the moment I might think "yes, extension X belongs in the next
> > GHC20xx", so do I vote yes or no for X?
>
> Ah, I see the confusion. The question is _not_ about “the next
> GHC20xx”, but it is about “GHC2023”, i.e. what do we want to no. The
> answer may well be “no extension is pressing enough to make a release
> now”.
>
> A year ago we concluded to
>
> > don’t work on defining GHC2022, and the next update
> > will be GHC2023 (or later).
>
> and now we have to decide if it’s going to be GHC2023 or later.
>
> Maybe what I want to say is that by deciding whether we have GHC2023 or
> not, we are (implicitly) setting a precedence for what could become a
> regular cadence, should we not change our minds in the following years.
>
>
> > What do other members of the committee think about cadence?  RSVP!
> > You are a member!
>
> I’m also curious :-)
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20230111/95b714bf/attachment.html>