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

[Carter Schonwald]

It’s probably worth looking at the wiki edit history too.

I’m pretty sure some edits were done to the policy in the past 18 months
without community feedback or discussion.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:33 PM Oleg Grenrus <oleg.grenrus at iki.fi> wrote:

> 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
> steps.
> - ... 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> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, Oleg Grenrus wrote:
>>
>> > For example
>> >
>> > - https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/20044 ByteArray migration
>> > from primitive to base
>> > - 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
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20210707/96d82d43/attachment.html>