Proposal: Change to library proposal process
johan.tibell at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 13:53:18 CET 2011
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:16:33PM +0100, Gregory Collins wrote:
>> * it is better to avoid tedious discussion even if it means taking 2
>> steps forward and 1 step back sometimes. Rolling back a controversial
>> patch is an O(1) operation.
> Only if it is noticed before the next GHC major release.
> One of the main reasons the library process was created was to get
> people to look at changes before it is too late.
Reviewing all patches to base and all the libraries maintained under
the libraries process is more work than we can expect you and e.g. the
Simons to do. However, the libraries process is not substitute for
having a maintainer and I think we're fooling ourselves in trying to
solve the problem of lack of maintainer (e.g. your) time by
outsourcing the job to libraries at . We should instead be looking for
More information about the Libraries