[Haskell-cafe] Is bumping the version number evil, if it's not mandated by the PVP?

Sebastian Fischer sebf at informatik.uni-kiel.de
Sat Aug 14 06:33:54 EDT 2010

[CC'ing café again]

On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Max Rabkin wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Sebastian Fischer
> <sebf at informatik.uni-kiel.de> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I wonder whether (and how) I should increase the version number of  
>> a library
>> when the API does not change but the implementation gets more  
>> efficient.
>> Should I bump a.b.C or even a.B to signal that it's worth using the  
>> new
>> version or should I bump only a.b.c.D such that packages that  
>> depend on a.b
>> get installed with the new version automatically?
> My understanding is that the PVP only describes the *minimum* version
> bump, not the maximum. There is a third option though: give the
> updated version two version numbers, one with an a.b.c.D bump so that
> reverse dependencies get the performance improvement, and one with an
> a.b.C bump so that users see a new version as worthwhile.

That's an interesting idea! In my case I'll probably bump version  
a.b.c.D with unchanged API but better performance and additionally  
release a new major version with a new API as well (as I planned to  
extend the API independently).


Underestimating the novelty of the future is a time-honored tradition.

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list