Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

[Michael Snoyman]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
> wrote:
> > 3. You have yet to demonstrate a single example of breakage to the HP
> that
> > would be caused by including tls.
>
> I don't want to get involved in the arguments about the other
> technicalities, but we've had breakages with the tls suite of packages
> in the past due to lack of upper bounds. Here's one quoted from an
> email to Vincent Hanquez:
>
>   The problem was that tls 1.1.2 doesn't list an upper bound on its
> crypto-pubkey dependency, but
> doesn't build with the new 0.2.* releases.
>
>
I'm not arguing about upper bounds in general. I don't dispute (and never
had!) that upper bounds can in many cases allow builds to succeed where
they would otherwise fail. I'm speaking specifically about the case of the
Haskell Platform, which makes all version bounds in the package itself
irrelevant by hard-coding exact versions of all dependencies.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140409/312c5893/attachment.html>