Avoiding bumping the major version of base in every release
johan.tibell at gmail.com
Wed Apr 9 12:51:48 UTC 2014
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel
<hvriedel at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 2014-04-09 at 12:00:36 +0200, Johan Tibell wrote:
> > *Short term*
> > - Make sure we only bump the major version number when we actually
> > a breaking change. We don't need to bump base because the major GHC
> > number changed.
> Fwiw, I did go over the changes in base-188.8.131.52 when I compiled the
> changelog to check whether the major bump was justified; but since a
> couple of deprecated functions where removed, several new typeclass
> instances were added (however, this isn't a justification anymore), the
> rather disruptive Typeable change occured, as well as the PrimBool
> changes (which may leak into the API exposed by base) I believed it was
> well justified.
I wasn't aware there was a more detailed changelog. Thanks for pointing it
out. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page here.
> > - Try harder to not make breaking changes. Breaking changes has a very
> > high cost to users and are seldom worth it to them. For example, avoid
> > renaming functions just because the new name feels cleaner. Just add
> a new
> > function and have the old function call the new function. All
> > languages do this.
> Aren't we already following this practice in base?
I am and I'm hoping others are too. Since hope is not a strategy I just
thought I'd spell it out to make sure we all agree.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ghc-devs