[Haskell-cafe] Re: [Haskell] Re: Trying to install binary-0.4
dm.maillists at gmail.com
Thu Oct 18 05:13:27 EDT 2007
On Thursday 18 October 2007 21:15, you wrote:
> Daniel McAllansmith <dm.maillists at gmail.com> writes:
> > 3. Otherwise, major.minor MUST remain the same (other version components
> > MAY change).
> Is it an option to say SHOULD rather than MUST here?
Of course, SHOULD is an option just like MAY is. But both SHOULD and MAY
reduce what you can reliably infer from a version number in the same way.
If the rule is SHOULD or MAY, and the freedom is exercised, compatible
versions of a package will differ in major[.minor] and dependent packages
will be unable to benefit from their release. You'll need more maintenance
work on package dependencies if you want to use the latest and greatest
In a similar way, if packages are being retained for a 'long time' to ensure
dependent packages remain buildable, you are losing garbage collection
I'm pretty certain SHOULD will be far more socially acceptable than MUST. I
can appreciate the fact that people are accustomed to incrementing version
numbers in liberal ways.
But if you look at version numbers dispassionately in the context of "The goal
of a versioning system is to inform clients of a package of changes to that
package that might affect them..." MUST seems a better choice.
Maybe the Right Way of informing clients is full-on metadata and typing of
packages and maybe we'll have that soon, so maybe a socially acceptable,
weaker versioning scheme is acceptable.
> There are
> other reasons for a version bump than breaking compatibility.
In some cases a major bump would just be devolving to a minor bump.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe