Process proposal: Require explicit user-oriented timelines in library proposals

Edward Kmett ekmett at
Sat Feb 13 23:15:01 UTC 2016

Everything that the CLC has in the works that affects the Prelude already
has been brought up most of the way to this standard, in that gives the summary of the
resulting timeline with the outstanding proposals worked out in in a user
facing manner.

It doesn't enumerate the explicit actions the user should take at each step
to build in whatever the 3 release compatible mode would be at any given
point, however. Help on that front would be welcome.

A few details change if the Simons choose to ultimately roll -Wcompat into
-Wall, as the 3 Release Policy takes a bit of a hit, but the general
timeline remains intact.

My primary concern is that if we ask end users who put forth proposals for
excruciating detail that considers everything in the 3 release policy, we
limit ourselves to proposals that come from people already deeply familiar
with the process.

The current mindset is that if we do choose to adopt a proposal once the
community has agreed to the broad strokes, we'll need to do what we can to
raise it to this level and incorporate it into the roadmap.

Currently we're doing so with respect to Prelude-affecting changes, but
spreading this (or something weaker) out to the wider set of core libraries
is something we could consider doing once we get a sense of how well it is
working in practice, and if there is a general sense that the stability it
brings outweighs the rather significant delays it imparts to the process.

Keep in mind we already have plans that stretch out to GHC 8.6 as a
consequence of the 3 Release Policy. Almost all significant changes will
now take around 4 years to play out. Around the Prelude that seems about
right. Around the rest of the core libraries that would likely become a
rather significant pain point.


On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Ben Gamari <ben at> wrote:

> Joachim Breitner <mail at> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Samstag, den 13.02.2016, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Ben Gamari:
> >> In the case of the proposals currently on the roadmap [1] it can
> >> sometimes be rather tricky to determine exactly where each of these
> points
> >> fall as the proposals tend to discuss implementation and leave the
> >> implications on the user implicit.
> >
> > Did you see the example roadmap I created on
> >
> >
> Ahh, indeed I did not. Thanks for the reference. That comes quite close
> to my example. Would it be possible to bring the active proposals up to
> this standard?
> Cheers,
> - Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list