[Haskell-cafe] Library Process (was Building "production stable" software in Haskell)

[Dominic Steinitz]

This discussion has sparked a question in my mind:

What is the process for the inclusion of modules / packages in ghc, hugs and 
other compilers & interpreters?

I thought the master plan was that less would come with the compiler / 
interpreter and the user would install packages using cabal.

I was thus mildly surprised earlier this year to find e.g. data.bytestring was 
included with ghc. Now that I look at the haddock, it says this is a base 
package but doesn't say anything about its status. On the other hand, there 
are lots of modules that are base packages that are experimental. Should 
something experimental be a base package? And shouldn't all modules that are 
base packages declare their status?

Perhaps these are questions for the libraries mailing list but I thought I'd 
start here.

Yours confused of Kingston.