Gearing up (again) for the next release: 2014.2.0.0

[Erik Hesselink]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:
> 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.

Ah, of course, that makes sense: all dependencies have to be included
in the platform as well. Sorry for the confusion.

Erik