[ghc-steering-committee] Urgent: exension life cycle proposal

[Adam Gundry]

On 03/09/2023 01:15, Moritz Angermann wrote:
> 
> The practice that we put experimental/unstable features into our stable 
> releases is something this proposal seems to cement, which is why I’m so 
> much against it in this form.

But that practice is already firmly established (de facto), it's not 
something being introduced by this proposal! So while I understand your 
opposition to *the practice*, I'm struggling to understand the strength 
of your opposition to *the proposal*.

You're welcome to make the argument (in a subsequent proposal, perhaps) 
that GHC should more firmly gate access to unstable features. If 
anything, that would seem easier to specify once the proposal's approach 
clearly defines those features. And in the interim, at least the 
proposal makes it possible to switch off unstable features systematically.

So I understand that this proposal doesn't get you everything you want. 
But it seems like a reasonable interim step, and one that is more likely 
to command broad consensus than a radical change to release practices?

Best wishes,

Adam


-- 
Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/

Registered in England & Wales, OC335890
27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England