Re: Why base library changes are only discussed on GHC issue tracker and not on the libraries@ list?
Oleg Grenrus <[email protected]> Wed, 7 Jul 2021 21:08:55 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.haskell.libraries |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Could the library submissions page be updated to reflect that. I think that maintainers of random, template-haskell, primitive are not correct either. I'm not sure whether text and bytestring should be on the list as well. Also GHC Trac issue-tracker links are dead. - Oleg On 7.7.2021 20.45, chessai wrote: > I (chessai) am the current maintainer for base. > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 12:41 Oleg Grenrus <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > As I understood from the > https://wiki.haskell.org/Library_submissions > <https://wiki.haskell.org/Library_submissions> page (to which GHC > wiki links from > https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/contributing#contributing-to-ghc > <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/contributing#contributing-to-ghc>), > this job of elevating issue to the CLC is the job of a library > maintainer. So I repeat my question: who are the current > maintainer(s) of base library to make these calls. > > I'd like to know whom comments I can and cannot ignore when > proposing changes, as everyone has an opinion on how base should > be (myself including). > > - Oleg > > On 7.7.2021 20.35, Carter Schonwald wrote: >> Respectfully: some of us like mailing lists for complicated >> discussions :) >> >> The issue here is deviation from processs that support a wider >> range of participants with different accessibility needs and >> varying levels of volunteer time. >> >> More over, a mailing list is easier for curious parties to >> subscribe to and filter to a dedicated inbox. Have you ever >> tried doing robust mailbox filters for GitHub or gitlab? It’s >> pretty tricky without creating a firehose of all repo events >> unless you’re in a group that’s always tagged. >> >> Any ticket tagged core libraries on gitlab needs to have a >> corresponding email to this list for folks who aren’t >> administratively in that notification group. Or needs to link to >> a thread here motivating it. >> >> I’m on that notification list for gitlab because current clc >> folks wanted me to continue helping out, but that’s not a >> scalable open participation model. >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:41 PM Sandy Maguire >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries >> <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libraries mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries >> <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libraries mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries> > _______________________________________________ > Libraries mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries > <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries> > _______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries