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

Yitzchak Gale gale at sefer.org
Wed Feb 26 20:12:06 UTC 2014

Edward Kmett wrote:
> There may be some quibbling I'd take with the language though for the case
> where you have a package with classes and a package that has orphans for
> those classes for a package that was too burdensome to add as a dependency
> for the base package, both under the control of the same maintainer.
> (Mutatis mutandis for data types)
> An example would be vector-instances. As I control both it, and most of the
> packages it makes orphans for, I'm simply constraining myself from not
> releasing versions of those packages with conflicting instances unless I
> bump them out of bounds.
> I'd like to find a way to spell this out in clearer PVP'ese, but it is the
> way in which I'm most likely to be PVP non-compliant in the future.

Would it help to make an exception for "standards-track" libraries
like vector? In that case, orphan instances are expected to be
only temporarily orphan. Hopefully, they will all eventually make
their way to their permanent homes.


More information about the Libraries mailing list