PVP proposal: don't require major version bump when adding non-orphan instances

John Lato jwlato at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 19:21:17 UTC 2014

+1 to this proposal in general, as well as updating the PVP to match
current practice.

On Feb 26, 2014 6:59 AM, "Johan Tibell" <johan.tibell at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Henning Thielemann <
> schlepptop at henning-thielemann.de> wrote:
>> As far as I remember we already discussed this:
>>    http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2011-December/017337.html
> Apparently I'm getting old and forgetful. :/
> By looking at the last thread and this thread I think the following people
> support the proposal:
> Johan Tibell
> Michael Snoyman
> Christian Maeder
>  Henning Thielemann
> And the following people against:
> Ganesh Sittampalam
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
> Erik Hesselink
> There were also lots of discussion by other people and, as per the rule on
> mailing lists discussions, discussions that weared off in a bunch of
> directions*.
> Some comments to help further discussions:
>    - You can still write "orphan" instances by using a newtype, if the
>    instance is only used internally. I did this in e.g. ekg which needed some
>    aeson instances. It added a couple if line of code to the library as a
>    whole.
>    - You can still write orphan instances, you just need to have tighter
>    version bounds.
>    - There were some comments along the lines of "I prefer major version
>    bumps to breakages." This doesn't introduce breakages, as long as people
>    follow the updated PVP.
> P.S. Other core library maintainers and I have already avoided bumping the
> major versions in several libraries, including containers and hashable, in
> the past, as I knew that would require more or less every package author to
> release a new version of their packages. In other words, we don't quite
> follow the PVP today and I don't think we should (i.e. we should change the
> PVP to match current practice.)
> * This is probably what I eventually abandoned the discussion and it's
> something that has annoyed me about libraries@ discussions for quite some
> time. We, as a community, need to get better at concentrate on the
> technical discussion at hand. We cannot redesign Haskell in every libraries
> proposal thread, as fun as that might be. The alternative would be to have
> less community input on these decisions -- which I think would be a shame
> -- as is common in other language communities.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140226/8cf960d1/attachment.html>

More information about the Libraries mailing list