On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Sven Panne <svenpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To me the fundamental question which should be answered before any detail > question is: Should we go on and continuously break minor things (i.e. > basically give up any stability guarantees) or should we collect a bunch of > changes first (leaving vital things untouched for that time) and release > all those changes together, in longer intervals? That's IMHO a tough > question which we somehow avoided to answer up to now. I would like to see > a broader discussion like this first, both approaches have their pros and > cons, and whatever we do, there should be some kind of consensus behind it. I recall suggesting something along the lines of stable vs. research ghc releases a few months back. This seems like it would fit in fairly well; the problem is getting buy-in from certain parts of the ecosystem that seem to prefer to build production-oriented packages from research/"unstable" releases. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
