[ghc-steering-committee] GHC2023

[Richard Eisenberg]

I'd personally rather spend our collective energies on landing the thoughts in our "Policy on Language Extensions" document. That is, work out any remaining points of disagreement and then move the document into the repo. In particular, if we end up in a place where we're content to add new syntax-guarded features without a new extension flag, that will, in turn, inform the GHC2023 idea.

I don't have the bandwidth to both work on GHC's type-checker (as I'm doing weekly, as Simon and I coordinate) and push such a thing through. Though if no one else wants to land that document, I think it's worth my slowing down type-checker work for a few weeks to do so. So any other volunteers here? Sorry to redirect us from the immediate task at hand -- GHC2023 -- but one of my principles is that it's best to work out principles (i.e. our policy on extensions) before specifics.

Richard

> On Jan 11, 2023, at 4:29 AM, Arnaud Spiwack <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:mail at joachim-breitner.de>
>   http://www.joachim-breitner.de/ <http://www.joachim-breitner.de/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org <mailto:ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org>
> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20230111/34b6d8ce/attachment.html>