Abstract FilePath Proposal

[Brandon Allbery]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Sven Panne <svenpanne at gmail.com> wrote:

> To me the fundamental question which should be answered before any detail
> question is: Should we go on and continuously break minor things (i.e.
> basically give up any stability guarantees) or should we collect a bunch of
> changes first (leaving vital things untouched for that time) and release
> all those changes together, in longer intervals? That's IMHO a tough
> question which we somehow avoided to answer up to now. I would like to see
> a broader discussion like this first, both approaches have their pros and
> cons, and whatever we do, there should be some kind of consensus behind it.


I recall suggesting something along the lines of stable vs. research ghc
releases a few months back. This seems like it would fit in fairly well;
the problem is getting buy-in from certain parts of the ecosystem that seem
to prefer to build production-oriented packages from research/"unstable"
releases.

-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b at gmail.com                                  ballbery at sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20150704/0ab0a18c/attachment.html>