'temporary' package

[Carter Schonwald]

You do raise a good point, should taking over maintainership of a library
adhere to PVP expectations?

On Friday, May 9, 2014, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can see this. However, there are solutions available. Local forks
> you already mentioned (and setting up your own hackage is very easy),
> but there are also freeze files in cabal now. Additionally (sorry, I
> have to mention it) upper bounds make builds much more stable. This
> whole thing wouldn't have happened if 'temporary' had an upper bound
> on its dependency on 'exceptions'.
>
> Of course your builds should stay working (which is why I advocate
> upper bounds) but there should also be a sense of package ownership, I
> think. The current trustee setup is meant for small fixes when an
> owner is gone/missing.
>
> Erik
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Niklas Hambüchen <mail at nh2.me<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > I can follow Roman's point and don't find it overreacting.
> >
> > When you're building software on which your success depends (e.g. for
> > your job or when it fuels your research), its very obstructing when the
> > ecosystem around you breaks, and you want it fixed as soon as possible.
> >
> > Of course having your own fork for everything solves that, but it'd be
> > great to avoid that effort and it breaks a key good thing in the Haskell
> > ecosystem: For many things there's only one package that does it right,
> > and it would be nice to keep that up.
> >
> > On 09/05/14 15:19, Erik Hesselink wrote:
> >> Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
> >> initial email...
> >>
> >> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org <javascript:;>
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140509/5abaa7b7/attachment.html>