Apostolos Syropoulos via Glasgow-haskell-users <glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org> writes:
> >Recently there has been a fair bit of discussion[1,2] around the >>mechanisms by which proposed changes to GHC are evaluated. While we have >>something of a formal proposal protocol [3], it is not clearly >>documented, inconsistently applied, and may be failing to serve a >>significant fraction of GHC's potential contributor pool. > > I think the best thing to do is to fork the source code and modify it > according > to one's own needs. Having some sort of committees to decide about the > syntax, etc. is a really bad idea. > The point here is not to place a committee in charge of designing features. To the contrary, the point of this proposal is to revamp our protocol for handling proposals brought by others. The committee merely serves as a gatekeeper to ensure that GHC's design and implementation remains coherent and maintainable and its semantics well-defined. Cheers, - Ben
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
