[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #601: extension lifecycle

[Adam Gundry]

I'm in favour. (And I'm willing to work on the necessary follow-up 
proposal to apply the categorisation to specific extensions.)

Cheers,

Adam


On 16/05/2024 09:27, Simon Peyton Jones wrote:
> Dear GHC Steering Committee
> 
> Trevis Elser has submitted GHC Proposal #601 
> <https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/601>to us for 
> consideration.  (It was originally drafted by David Christiansen, but 
> Trevis took it over.)
> 
> It proposes that that we classify extensions into four categories:
> 
>   * Stable
>   * Experimental
>   * Deprecated
>   * Legacy
> 
> It does not say which extensions are in which category (that's #635, 
> still to come); it simply establishes the categories.
> 
> *I strongly urge you to accept the proposal*. We have been using this 
> language informally for years, and it's good to nail it down more precisely.
> 
> There is plenty of discussion on the PR, but it's all about the 
> specifics (e.g. do we want both Deprecated and Legacy; answer, yes).  
> There seems to be a strong consensus around the principle.
> 
> I don't expect this to be controversial. Please (everyone) can you 
> respond within a week, by *end of day on Thursday 23 May. *Can you
> 
>   * Reply by email
>   * Update the spreadsheet
>     <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1e6GdwHmAjeDEUhTvP-b18MDkpTfH3SMHhFu5F3nDIWc/edit?usp=sharing>with your vote
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Simon

-- 
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