Why base library changes are only discussed on GHC issue tracker and not on the libraries@ list?

Oleg Grenrus oleg.grenrus at iki.fi
Wed Jul 7 17:32:43 UTC 2021

Thanks for this reply. It made me reread
https://wiki.haskell.org/Library_submissions page.
In the Guide to proposers section it says:

- All library proposals should start on the relevant issue tracker.
- At this point, the library maintainer is responsible for taking next
- ... or decide that this is a controversial decision that must be
discussed with the CLC.

- If the CLC decides that the discussion must be discussed with the
libraries@ mailing list, the original proposer may be asked to moderate
the libraries@ mailing list discussion

So do I understand right: it's up to the base-library maintainer to
decide whether a change is controversial and must to be discussed with
CLC, which in can elevate it to wider discussion or not.

The page however lists Edward Kmett and Ryan Scott as base-maintainers,
which I'm pretty sure is not right.
Who are the base maintainers?

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding, it seems you are right Sandy, the
issues should be discussed in the issue trackers first, and only
elevated to libraries@ list if CLC decides it needs to!
That is much more reasonable then going to the libraries@ directly for
every issue.

- Oleg

On 7.7.2021 19.41, Sandy Maguire wrote:
> At risk of being the messenger who gets shot....
> As an outsider, it seems very reasonable to me to file a bug against
> the issue tracker for a project whose code I think should be changed.
> For better or worse, this is the way that 99% of software projects
> work. Expecting everyone in the community to know that they
> _shouldn't_ be filing bugs against the issue tracker is a losing
> battle. I'm more hooked in than most, and even I didn't know this.
> I can empathize with things not being done the way you'd like to be,
> but the claim that things happening on the GHC tracker are done "in
> private" is silly. The gitlab tracker is 10x more accessible, and the
> lack of community engagement on the mailing lists speaks volumes.
> And besides, nobody wants to be on a mailing list anyway. It's a
> terrible experience with weird branching and no persistence, and while
> there are archives, it's an extremely unpleasant thing to try to
> spelunk through.
> Best,
> Sandy
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:52 AM Henning Thielemann
> <lemming at henning-thielemann.de <mailto:lemming at henning-thielemann.de>>
> wrote:
>     On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, Oleg Grenrus wrote:
>     > For example
>     >
>     > - https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20044
>     <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20044> ByteArray
>     migration
>     > from primitive to base
>     > - https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20027
>     <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20027> Changing Show
>     String
>     > behavior
>     >
>     > Why they are discussed "in private", I thought libraries@ list
>     is where
>     > such changes should be discussed.
>     I think so, too, and I missed them as well.
>     _______________________________________________
>     Libraries mailing list
>     Libraries at haskell.org <mailto:Libraries at haskell.org>
>     http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>     <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20210707/03fbe167/attachment.html>

More information about the Libraries mailing list