Proposal: Changes to the PVP

[Greg Weber]

One thing to keep in mind is that version freezing is only for application
builders, that information probably needs to be included in information
that educates about PVP vs. reproducible build.

Linking to the reddit discussion, a comment that had the most upvotes was
completely confused on reproducible builds, here is the commenter's
explanation of what a reproducible build is:

You're probably right; Simply stated, I considered "reproducible build" to
mean that if there was a package on Hackage that I could cabal install
foobar with a given GHC version at some point in time, I would be able to
do that for each later point in time (e.g. 1 year later) using the very
same GHC version (at least). Isn't that was the PVP was created to
accomplish in the first place?

http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/22jlis/proposal_changes_to_the_pvp/cgnvq2f


On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm  confused, Michael, have you documented your not PVP convention
>> anywhere?
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking. The incident in question had nothing to
> do with PVP compliance or lack thereof. The proposal on the table is pretty
> close to what I use in practice right now. If this proposal is approved, I
> would likely start adding in upper bounds in accord with what the new
> standards would be. Right now, in cases of mostly-stable packages like text
> and bytestring, I've simply left off the upper bounds entirely.
>
> Michael
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140409/e8191b64/attachment.html>