Abstract FilePath Proposal
spam at scientician.net
Sat Jul 4 22:17:24 UTC 2015
On 07/04/2015 09:38 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> 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"
But isn't that effectively just the same as saying: "In our organization
we'll be staying with GHC 7.8.x until GHC 7.12.x comes out"? (Or
similar, I'm sure you get the point.)
Yes, the rest of the ecosystem may move along and use the latest new
shiny, but then you can always use the packages that worked with GHC
7.8.x thanks to version ranges.
Am I missing something?
More information about the ghc-devs