Splitting Network.URI from the network package

[Michael Snoyman]

Awesome, thanks Johan!


On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20140816/7313a35f/attachment-0001.html>