Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

[Michael Snoyman]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Gregory Collins <greg at gregorycollins.net>wrote:

>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>wrote:
>
>> I don't read it that way at all. The PVP has two components: how to
>> number your own packages, and how to place bounds on dependencies. That
>> document says nothing at all about version bounds; it's referring
>> explicitly to version numbers. You're doing this entire discussion a huge
>> disservice by talking in absolutes like "doesn't obey the PVP."
>>
>
> The fourth bullet point in the first paragraph says explicitly: "We follow
> the Haskell Package Versioning Policy" and links to that document.
>


In a section talking about version numbers, not version bounds. I was
pretty clear in what I said, so I'll repeat it:

> The PVP has two components: how to number your own packages, and how to
place bounds on dependencies. That document says nothing at all about
version bounds; it's referring explicitly to version numbers.

The Haskell Platform document is clearly talking about how to do version
numbers, not how to place dependencies. Absurd analogy: if we're discussing
spelling conventions in a library, and we say "we'll follow the British
rules," that doesn't mean that date formats will automatically be British
as well.

I know you don't like it but please don't pretend like it isn't there.
>
>
If you're going to reduce this discussion to misconstruing what I'm saying,
I think it's clear there's no purpose in continuing it. I've made my points:

1. We've never enforced this requirement in the past.
2. I disagree with your reading of the HP doc.
3. You have yet to demonstrate a single example of breakage to the HP that
would be caused by including tls.


> Furthermore, I asked you for concrete examples of how enforcing a PVP
>> requirement on tls would help the Haskell Platform; you responded with a
>> document. I'm not interested in having a legal battle here; I'm trying to
>> make sure we're making good technical decisions. So is there a reason to
>> enforce this requirement on HP packages?
>>
>
> There are good reasons for following the package versioning policy as
> written, and this matter was debated when the policy was first proposed. We
> can debate it again (and we will, on the other thread), but this isn't
> about legalisms: packages that violate PVP break builds.
>
>
You're once again ignoring what I said. I'm not debating general
application of the PVP rules. Specifically in the case of including a
package in the Haskell Platform, what harm comes to the platform by
including a package without upper bounds? The platform itself will lock
down every single dependency for that package to a specific version, and
therefore any bounds in the package itself are completely irrelevant.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140409/1540b7ad/attachment-0001.html>