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

[Carter Schonwald]

no one is disputing that there are conditional changes in dependencies
depending on library versions.

an interesting intermediate point would be have a notion of "testing with "
constraints in cabal and engineering cabal to support a
"--withTestedConstraints" to have a simple composable way of handling
constructing build plans.

at the end of the day, its an engineering problem coupled with a social
factors problem. Those are hard :)


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:44 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
>>
>
> Upper package versions did not originally exist, and nobody wanted them.
>  You can see the result in at least half the packages on Hackage:  upper
> versions came in when base got broken up, and when bytestring was merged
> into base --- both of which caused massive breakage that apparently even
> the people around at the time and involved with it no longer remember.
>
> I'm not going to argue the point though; ignore history and remove them if
> you desire.
>
> --
> brandon s allbery                                      allbery.b at gmail.com
> wandering unix systems administrator (available)     (412) 475-9364 vm/sms
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ee7b39eb/attachment.htm>