Meeting URL: https://meet.jit.si/StableHaskellMeetBiWeekly
Previous meeting notes
- New items
cabal.project
with warnings for multiple ghc versions (reA potential recommendation RE -Werror
on [email protected])GHC2023
?
- Updates on in-progress work
- Creating and maintaining a set of hlint rules to promote stability
- Bulletin discussed previously
- GHC API
- Update on Language/compiler features to help stability
- GHC warning policy document as discussed previously
- GHC.X.Hackage second draft
-
cabal.project with warnings for multiple ghc versions.
- Would be nice if we had an expression language, though we don't expect to get that
- How often does a new warning being added to Wall break the ability to use older compilers?
- Any conclusion /actions here???
-
- Tom: original proposal said annual GHC20xx releases; but Tom would prefer every 5 yrs or so.
- Trevis: The community isn't moving quick enough to give good feedback every year.
- SPJ: GHC team would be happy with any consensus here, and would be thrilled if the Stablity group evolved such a consensus.
- Question: does this group want to lead a consensus-building activity?
- Answer: yes, and Tom is willing to lead.
- Starting with an email to ghc-steering committee.
- Holding the token: Tom
-
Creating and maintaining a set of hlint rules to promote stability
- Hlint does not seem to have the ability to write rules around class methods that have defaults
- So writing a rule for (/=) is not possible currently.
- Take to the community
- C.f. New GHC style guide
- Mention the things we would like to do, but HLint can't manage (yet)
- Holding the token: Trevis
- Hlint does not seem to have the ability to write rules around class methods that have defaults
-
Bulletin discussed previously
- Holding the token: Chris
- No update
-
GHC warning policy document as discussed previously
- Holding the token: Chris
- No update
-
GHC API discussed previously
- Holding the token: David
- No update
-
Update on Language/compiler features to help stability
- Holding the token: David
- No update
-
- David and Ben have discussed this. Do not want to follow the Technical Working Group proposal (right now)
- Instead run a pilot project, say for the GHC 9.6 branch.
- Make crystal clear to potential contributors how to contribute to such a head.hackage branch, based on this draft blog post
- Move content into head.hackage repo so that it becomes editable as things change. (Blog is an advert; and points to the repo doc)