> 20 juli 2016 kl. 19:38 skrev amin...@gmail.com: > > > >> El 20 jul 2016, a las 12:45, Ben Gamari <b...@well-typed.com> escribió: >> >> Iavor Diatchki <iavor.diatc...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Hello Ben, >>> >>> I posted this when you originally asked for feed-back, but perhaps it >>> got buried among the rest of the e-mails. >> Indeed it seems that way. Sorry about that! >> >>> I think the proposal sounds fairly reasonable, but it is hard to say how >>> well it will work in practice until we try it, and we should be ready to >>> change it if needs be. >> Right. I fully expect that we will have to iterate on it. >> >>> Some clarifying questions on the intended process: >>> 1. After submitting the initial merge request, is the person making the >>> proposal to wait for any kind of acknowledgment, or just move on to step 2? >> The discussion phase can happen asynchronously from any action by the >> Committee. Of course, the Committee should engauge in discussion early, >> but I don't think any sort of acknowledgement is needed. An open pull >> request should be taken to mean "let's discuss this idea." >> >>> 2. Is the discussion going to happen on one of the mailing lists, if so >>> which? Is it the job of the proposing person to involve/notify the >>> committee about the discussion? If so, how are they to find out who is on >>> the committee? >> >> The proposed process places the discussion in a pull request. The idea >> here is to use well-understood and widely-used code review tools to >> faciliate the conversation. > > This part runs strongly against the grain of what I'd prefer: email is > lightweight, decentralized, standard, and has many clients. We can read > discussion of Haskell proposals any way we like. Github on the other hand > only allows us to read issues by going to Github, and using whatever > interface Github has given us (which personally I find very annoying, esp. on > mobile). In addition, reading proposals offline becomes very difficult. Many > of us read discussion when commuting, where, e.g. in NYC, there isn't cell > service. > > For reviewing code that implements a proposal, I'm a lot more flexible > (although again I'm not a fan of Github) > > For the people who like having history tracked with git: gitit is a > possibility, and is written in Haskell. > > Tom >
It's possible both follow and contribute to issues in a github repo via email. I do it all the time for Idris. // Niklas > > >> The Committee members will be notified of the open pull request by the >> usual event notification mechanism (e.g. in GitHub one can subscribe to >> a repository). >> >>> 3. How does one actually perform step 3, another pull request or simply >>> an e-mail to someone? >> The opening of the pull request would mark the beginning of the >> discussion period. When the author feels that the discussion has come to >> something of a conclusion, they will request that the GHC Committee >> consider the proposal for acceptable by leaving a comment on the pull >> request. >> >>> Typo: two separate bullets in the proposal are labelled as 4. >> I believe this should be fixed now. Thanks! >> >> Cheers, >> >> - Ben >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list >> Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users > _______________________________________________ > Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list > Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
