Another API stability plea
alexander.dunlap at gmail.com
Sun Aug 22 23:28:26 EDT 2010
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Conrad Parker <conrad at metadecks.org> wrote:
> On 23 August 2010 11:36, Ashley Yakeley <ashley at semantic.org> wrote:
>> On 2010-08-11 13:18, John Goerzen wrote:
>>> I'm writing because there was an API change in a point release. This is
>>> violating our convention and the Platform policy.
>> I wonder if this could be checked automatically by the Hackage upload
> I think it'd be useful for Hackage to check this automatically, but I
> think it should be part of the archive management not part of the
> upload process.
> As has been randomly suggested before, it would make sense to use a
> model like Debian's of having mulitple parallel archives
> (experimental, unstable, testing, stable), where packages are migrated
> from one to the next after some automated testing. The current Hackage
> policy would roughly correspond to Debian experimental -- a staging
> area from which some autobuild system tries to find packages which it
> can promote to unstable without breaking it.
> It may take a while (eg. overnight) to discover that an upload to
> experimental breaks some other package, and during that time there may
> be other uploads. I think it's better to allow developers to upload to
> an experimental staging archive and for Hackage to run overnight
> checks on the whole archive, than to pretend Hackage can find
> breakages instantly and disallow the upload of a package.
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
If that happens, is the PVP even needed anymore? If Hackage
automatically checks when packages break, couldn't it automatically
determine upper bounds? Then we wouldn't need the conservative
Of course, it seems like a fairly ambitious proposal to do all this
More information about the Libraries