Re: Infrastructure status?

[Herbert Valerio Riedel]

Hello!

On 2016-05-31 at 19:50:54 +0200, Iavor Diatchki wrote:
> what is the status of the discussion about how we should collaborate?

> I am not picky and would be happy to use whatever tools others prefer.
> If it was left to me, I'd use: 1) a git repo on github, which contains
> the current version of the report, and various proposals, and 2) this
> e-mail list for discussion.

Coincidentally, GHC HQ is considering to revamp its process for
proposals as well, so I was holding off a bit to see what would come out
of it, as there's an understandable desire by GHC HQ to ideally share a
similiar/compatible process with the Haskell language+library committee
to make it easier to migrate proposals between the organisations. After
all, proposals starting out as GHC extension proposals are often
submitted with the agenda to re-propose them for inclusion into the
standard once they've been battle-proven.

Specifically, a variation of the Rust RFC process is being flirted with,
so that's quite similiar to what you're suggesting. While there were
concerns about GitHub being a proprietary service, I see little harm,
since there's APIs to extract/backup the relevant data from GitHub.

However, I'd strongly advise to not mix the report-git repo with the
proposals git repo, as that would result in a messy Git history.

I'd rather suggest to have 2 Git repos, to keep the concerns separate.
And I think we can just start out with such a 2nd GitHub repo and
make the process up as we go. At this point we should just get moving, as I
sense many of you want to finally start writing up proposals!

If this turns out to be a bad idea, we can just call it an instructive
failed experiment, and move the content into some other form.

If there's no objections, I suggest we create a
 repository with a similiar basic
structure to  and see how far we get
with that...


> As I said before, I think it might be quite nice as a first step to
> standardize something simple, and hopefully not too controversial, so
> that we can all familiarize ourselves with the basic process.

___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime

Re: Limber separators

[Antonio Nikishaev]

> On 12 May 2016, at 23:48, Iavor Diatchki  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 1:44 AM, Jon Fairbairn  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> The one this violates is “never make language design decisions
> to work around deficiencies in tools” The problem is that diff
> does its work in ignorance of the syntax and consequently
> produces poor results.
> 
> 
> I think that this is an excellent principle that we should uphold.


Personally I don't need this extension per se since I don't care about one 
excess diff line.
What I do care about however, is the horrendous style people invented to avoid 
“the diff problem”.
As an example

something = [ foo
, bar
, baz
]

So I’d really like to see this extension, even if only to conquer the 
aforementioned style.



PSBut this all is indeed a little bikeshedding before we finish the 
“Infrastructure & Communication” thread.



-- 
lelf

___
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime