Haskell Platform decision: time to bless parsec 3?

[Mario Blažević]

On 10-11-11 07:32 PM, Derek Elkins wrote:
>> On 6 November 2010 15:18, Don Stewart<dons at galois.com>  wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> This is a loose end in the package policy situation: when the HP has a
>>> major upgrade, the policy is to do all major upgrades for any packages
>>> contained in the HP, as long as they don't add new dependencies.
>>>
>>> One exception to this rule has been parsec, where parsec 2 was
>>> considered "blessed" on an ad hoc basis.
>>>
>>> I propose we agree to remove this ad hoc rule, and thus the HP will ship
>>> with parsec 3.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have concerns with this?
>>
>> Yes. I think that if a package has a significant discontinuity then it
>> has to be reconsidered at least to some degree.
>>
>> In the case of parsec 2 and 3, initially parsec 3 was an experimental
>> new version, by different authors. It was not initially clear if it
>> would be an obvious replacement, if it was functionally correct and if
>> the performance or documentation was up to scratch compared to version
>> 2.
>>
>> Personally I would be satisfied if the current maintainer(s) would
>> state that they believe the current parsec 3 release is up to standard
>> and that they believe it should become the new version in the
>> platform.
>>
>> Duncan
>
> I would say Parsec 3 is not less up to standard than Parsec 2.


	I support the Parsec upgrade proposal. All my code that depends on 
Parsec has long ago been upgraded to Parsec 3, and I had no problems to 
report.