[Haskell-cafe] Platform Versioning Policy: upper bounds are not our friends

David Thomas davidleothomas at gmail.com
Wed Aug 15 22:50:54 CEST 2012

Would it make sense to have a known-to-be-stable-though soft upper bound
added proactively, and a known-to-break-above hard bound added reactively,
so people can loosen gracefully as appropriate?
On Aug 15, 2012 1:45 PM, "Johan Tibell" <johan.tibell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being
> > *added* will never happen again?
> It would be useful to have some examples of these. I'm not sure we had
> any when we wrote the policy (but Duncan would know more), but rather
> reasoned our way to the current policy by saying that things can
> theoretically break if we don't have upper bounds, therefore we need
> them.
> -- Johan
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20120815/f81a5aca/attachment.htm>

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list