Bardur Arantsson <[email protected]> writes: > On 04/14/2016 08:17 PM, Austin Seipp wrote: >> Here's a question, on top of this one: why don't we require >> template-haskell changes for most corresponding syntax changes? We >> tend to play catch up with template-haskell sometimes and it's >> relatively strange. I mean, in some sense, we could have said a while >> back "This needs another revision, please add template haskell >> support" and avoided it all. >> >> Richard has a better insight into this than I do, I'm sure, but it >> seems - to me, anyway - like template-haskell support is a reasonable >> bar for most surface-level syntax change to cross, before getting >> merged. >> >> My intuition tells me that, most of the time, a lot of us simply >> forget to make the changes, or ask for them in reviews, and so it >> goes. >> > > ISTM that this kind of thing could be reasonably handled by simply > having a checklist for new functionality -- which includes TH support as > a checkbox. > Indeed, I have a list that I try to check against while reviewing. I've put it up here [1] (and added checking for template-haskell support) although I agree that it would be nice if this were better integrated into the review process.
> I'm sure others there are other frequently-forgotten-but-important > things that people can think of to put into such a checklist. > > (Not sure if GHC has a "Release" checklist, but I'd imagine one of those > might also be useful.) There is the MakingReleases page [2]. Cheers, - Ben [1] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/WorkingConventions/PatchChecklist [2] https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/MakingReleases
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
