Splitting Network.URI from the network package

Sat Aug 16 17:35:25 UTC 2014

same!

I'd be willing to be a co-maintainer with 1-2+ other folks

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Michael Snoyman <michael at snoyman.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140816/7ec30ce1/attachment.html>