3 release policy

[Richard Eisenberg]

I share this concern. I think one way to keep folks happy is to have multiple tiers of warnings. Then library authors can aim to have their libraries warning-free up to some tier.

I wonder if part of the problem is that Haskell is optimized for programmers who prize beauty and cleanliness. Warnings are ugly! So our community avoids them at all cost... and that cost seems to have gotten too high. Engineering is sometimes dirty, and we shouldn't be ashamed of that.

Richard

On Oct 20, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Jeremy <voldermort at hotmail.com> wrote:

> A "3 release policy" has been recently mentioned several times, whereby it
> should always be possible to write code that compiles with the last three
> releases of GHC, without generating any -Wall warnings.
> 
> The no warning requirement seems excessively harsh. Will early warnings of
> impending breakage really cause so much trouble that accepted proposals have
> to be dragged out over several years to avoid them? If so, would a flag to
> suppress the warnings suffice?
> 
> I should note that GHC has traditionally had no qualms about introducing new
> warnings, on by default.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/3-release-policy-tp5820363.html
> Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries