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

[Michael Blume]

> it's usual for the existing upper bounds to refer to versions that don't exist at the time of writing (and hence can't be known to be stable).

Well, known to be stable given semantic versioning, then.

http://semver.org/

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan <bos at serpentine.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Thomas <davidleothomas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> I don't think so. It adds complexity, but more importantly it's usual for
> the existing upper bounds to refer to versions that don't exist at the time
> of writing (and hence can't be known to be stable).
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>