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

Sebastian Fischer sebf at informatik.uni-kiel.de
Sun Aug 15 06:22:46 EDT 2010


On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Ross Paterson wrote:

>> When bumping only a.b.c.D, the new version is not installed as a
>> dependency if the old version already is installed (unless the new
>> version is explicitly demanded.) It seems bumping a.b.c.D has
>> advantages for some users and disadvantages for others.
> How would bumping the major version change that?

Right, it doesn't. My worry with bumping only the patch level is that  
people who explicitly want to depend on the efficient version of my  
library need to depend on a.b.c.D and cannot follow the good practice  
of depending on a.b.*.

I actually like the idea of making a patch-level release *and* a new  
major release to get the best of both approaches. Do you think this is  

On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:49 PM, wren ng thornton wrote:

> Asymptotic improvements may very well be worth a C or B bump [...]  
> If your library is _defined_ by its performance characteristics,  
> then a C or B bump would be appropriate since the complexity is  
> effectively part of the API

To make things clear, I will shortly release a new version of the  
primes package for efficient generation of prime numbers. The new  
version asymptotically improves memory usage. The point of the library  
is to generate primes efficiently, so a major version bump feels  
justified. However, as explained above, I plan to additionally make a  
patch-level release.


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

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list