[ghc-steering-committee] GHC stability discussions

[Joachim Breitner]

Hi,

Am Sonntag, dem 05.11.2023 um 23:03 +0000 schrieb Simon Peyton Jones:
> It would be good to get some of this decided.

Agreed!

>   Too much is in the air at the moment!  Personally I think:
>  * We can agree at least the Stable/Experimental part of #601
>  * The Stability Goals seem fairly uncontroversial.  Shall we just make it part of the GHC Proposal process documentation
>  * #620 is new; your views would be welcome
>  * The approach to #617 may depend on the outcome of #620.

#601 has more categories than Stable/Experimental, and an enforcement
mechanism, which seems to be subsumed by #617 and/or #620, is that
right? Then maybe we can send #601 back to revision (or reject it), and
just cherry-pick the ideas that we care about?

The “Stability Goals” document is a bit more than just goals, it’s
actually a pretty clear policy with rules that sound like fresh long
distance hiking trails (GR…). But yes, we could ratify them and put
them somewhere useful. But why not the GHC documentation? The
guarantees written down there, and the definition of “stable package”
are relevant to the users, not just those writing proposals.

Agreed with parting #670 until #620 is done.

Cheers,
Joachim


-- 
Joachim Breitner
  mail at joachim-breitner.de
  http://www.joachim-breitner.de/