New Libraries Proposal process

Julian Ospald hasufell at
Thu Jul 1 08:12:56 UTC 2021

You want to change base. base release schedule is tied to GHC and is in fact part of its git tree:

By providing a clear patch with reasoning and motivation, you're reducing the possibility of bikeshedding.

ML is for bikeshedding and getting a picture of community opinion. I believe your patch doesn't require any of that. If the GHC team/CLC thinks so, they'll let you know on your PR.

My experience even with patches to core libraries is also mixed. Last time I tried to provide something as simple as forM to Data.Set. It took 1 year to even get to an actual review. Then the patch was 90% done, but failed because of the remaining 10% that the maintainers weren't able to make clear to me.

IMO, these days it's hard to get contributors anyway. I personally merge PRs even if they're just 80% done and fix the rest myself.

I don't expect there to be issues with base though. GHC developers are responsive.

On July 1, 2021 6:58:24 AM UTC, Ignat Insarov <kindaro at> wrote:
>> Pull request on ghc gitlab  and then link to it here for folks to
>review it.
>> Grounded patches solve all sorts of ambiguity.  Having another
>proposal process doesn’t solve that. :)
>Carter, I completely fail to understand any of your three sentences.
>1. What does GHC have to do with any of this? I am talking about
>proposals to core libraries, not GHC.
>2. What is a grounded patch? What is the ambiguity you are talking
>Libraries mailing list
>Libraries at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list