Splitting Network.URI from the network package

Sat Aug 16 16:49:18 UTC 2014

OK. The split is done and both packages are now on Hackage.

If someone is interested in maintaining the network-uri package (under the
HP constraints), please let me know and I can add you to the GitHub repo on
github.com/haskell/network-uri. I've set up a travis-ci build for the
package as well.

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The network-uri repo lives at https://github.com/haskell/network-uri for
> now.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The network master branch now has the changes I intend for network-2.6
>> (plus some internal clean-up).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> I will do the required changes (split, add docs, etc) and put the new
>>> package under https://github.com/haskell/network-uri (for now).
>>>
>>> It would be great to have a new maintainer, under the condition that the
>>> new maintainer recognizes that
>>>
>>>  * Network.URI has been around for a long time and lots of users depend
>>> on it, so please don't break backwards compatibility without some serious
>>> thought and
>>>  * the package is a part of the HP (by virtue of network being apart and
>>> we don't want to remove a module without due process), so the maintainer
>>> will need to adhere to the HP rules (e.g. don't add new deps that are not
>>> part of the HP).
>>>
>>> I will try to do the split in the next few days, but I have visitors so
>>> it might take a bit longer.
>>>
>>> -- Johan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Michael Snoyman <
>>>>>> michael at snoyman.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Johan Tibell <
>>>>>>> johan.tibell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  *Options 2: Users of Network.URI depend on both network and a
>>>>>>>> specially crafted network-uri*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Cons:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    - network-uri has a false dependency on network (i.e. it
>>>>>>>>    doesn't actually need that package).
>>>>>>>>    - You can't build against a new version of text *and* use the
>>>>>>>>       network-uri package (this is the current problem we have with network in
>>>>>>>>       the problem description).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Can you clarify this point? I would imagine that network will no
>>>>>>> longer have *any* dependency on text, so I don't see where this comes from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My apologies. Let me clarify. If the user doesn't already have a
>>>>>> version of network installed (e.g. via the HP), then building network is
>>>>>> required to build network-uri. This probably isn't a problem on Windows, if
>>>>>> we assume users already have an appropriate version of network through the
>>>>>> HP. It might be an inconvenience (e.g. longer build times) for users who
>>>>>> don't use the HP but still want to build network-uri (e.g for the
>>>>>> maintainer of network-uri :) ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the clarifications Duncan and Johan. Yes, we should add a
>>>>> con to the option 2 that usage of network-uri will require network to be
>>>>> available. I'd consider this a relatively low-impact con, since I highly
>>>>> doubt there are many people out there who will want to use Network.URI but
>>>>> not also want to use network- at least transitively.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even after the arguments from Duncan and Johan, I still would prefer
>>>>> going with option 2, because (1) I don't feel confident yet that all
>>>>> flag-related issues in the dependency solver have been fixed (up until just
>>>>> two weeks ago I was still answering user questions about those bugs), and
>>>>> (2) my experience with the flag approach was that it was very tedious to
>>>>> work with, and I remember seeing a lot of confusion among other packages as
>>>>> to the right way to specify dependencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think that either option 1 or option 2 are better than the
>>>>> current status quo, so I'd rather not let this issue become a sticking
>>>>> point in the proposal. I'd say let's take a vote on option 1 or 2, and
>>>>> continue with the discussion deadline for this proposal (which seems to
>>>>> have unanimous support) of this Friday. Any objection?
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given the lack of objections, I think it's fair to call this issue
>>>> decided in favor of the original proposal, with the modification under
>>>> "option 1" that Johan described. To summarize:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Create a new package, network-uri, version 2.6.0.0, which provides
>>>> the Network.URI module verbatim as provided by the network package today,
>>>> and has no dependency at all on network.
>>>> 2. Release network version 2.6.0.0, with no changes from the currently
>>>> released version, except that (a) no Network.URI module is provided, and
>>>> (b) there is no parsec dependency.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably, we will also add some documentation to the network and
>>>> network-uri cabal files with instructions on how to depend on the
>>>> Network.URI module.
>>>>
>>>> Johan: given that you're the current maintainer of network, how would
>>>> you like to proceed on implementing this? Do you want to do so yourself, or
>>>> do you want a pull request? And regarding network-uri: do you want to
>>>> remain maintainer of it, or should I (or someone else) take it over?
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140816/6ae0ee7a/attachment.html>