Avoiding bumping the major version of base in every release

Johan Tibell 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
> make
> >    a breaking change. We don't need to bump base because the major GHC
> version
> >    number changed.
> Fwiw, I did go over the changes in base- 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
> successful
> >    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.

-- Johan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20140409/0f17f83c/attachment.html>

More information about the ghc-devs mailing list