Upper bounds in PVP

[MightyByte]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Vincent Hanquez <tab at snarc.org> wrote:
> On 2014-04-10 13:52, MightyByte wrote:
>>
>> It seems like this issue has clearly been the source of
>> disagreement/misunderstanding, so +1 from me too.  The harder question
>> is precisely what changes should be made.
>
> English speakers (which many PvP original authors are) would have very
> likely the correct (and RFC2119 compliant) understanding of those words.

Not at all.  Natural spoken English simply isn't that precise.  From
http://thesaurus.com/browse/should:

"As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American
English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between
should and would. See also shall."

The PVP is not written in the style of RFC2119, so I think it's quite
reasonable to interpret it as you would interpret normal English
speech.

"When publishing a Cabal package, you should ensure that your
dependencies in the build-depends field are accurate. This means
specifying not only lower bounds, but also upper bounds on every
dependency."

I as a native English speaker read that to mean that upper bounds MUST
be specified on every dependency if you want to comply with the spirit
of that document.

> Suggesting that this was the source of disagreement/misunderstanding, is in
> my opinion disingenuous at best.

No.  Now we see that this is exactly the source of at least one
misunderstanding.

> Otherwise I'm all for (+1) spelling out that the PvP is following RFC2119;
> there's no harm for being crystal clear about this.

Here we're in agreement.