I suppose that would be a reasonable alternative. But to keep discussion tracking reasonable, I suspect it would be best to close the pre-proposal PR and open a new one (with mutual links) for the actual proposal if and when the time comes.
On Tue, May 1, 2018, 3:24 PM Richard Eisenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > I like this idea, but I think this can be done as a PR, which seems a > better fit for collaborative building. The author can specify that a > proposal is a "pre-proposal", with the goal of fleshing it out before > committee submission. If it becomes necessary, we can furnish a tag to > label these, but I'm honestly not sure we'll need to. > > Richard > > > On May 1, 2018, at 2:24 PM, David Feuer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sometimes, a language extension idea could benefit from some community > discussion before it's ready for a formal proposal. I'd like to propose > that we open up the GitHub issues tracker for ghc-proposals to serve as a > place to discuss pre-proposal ideas. Once those discussions converge on one > or a few specific plans, someone can write a proper proposal. > > _______________________________________________ > > ghc-devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
