On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 03:00:42PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 14:11 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > > If anyone sees any problems with my suggested version numbers below, > > please shout. > > > > I've CCed all addresses listed as Cabal maintainers of extralibs; please > > let us know if you disagree with the versions we propose to use for your > > packages. > > Only two minor points... > > > > ========== > > > arrows > > > > > > HEAD repo: http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/arrows > > > Released version: 0.3 (on hackage) > > > Current version: 0.3 > > > Changes since release: none > > > Suggested next version: not needed > > > PVP next version: not needed > > > > There have been some patches to the repo, so I think it would be nice to > > make a new tarball, and it's not that expensive, so I'd suggest 0.3.0.1. > > There are no patches since the one that increased the version number > from 0.2.1 to 0.3. No new release is needed at the moment.
Ah, sorry, my mistake, I hadn't pulled the latest patch. OK, so in principle I'd be fine with 0.3, except if we want to move to 4-component version numbers then we need to use 0.3.0.1 anyway (I don't think having both 0.3 and 0.3.0.0 which don't compare equal is a good idea. We'll just get confused). > > > ========== > > > X11 > > > > > > HEAD repo: http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/X11 > > > Released version: 1.2.3 (on hackage) > > > Current version: 1.2.3 > > > Changes since: none > > > Suggested next version: not needed > > > PVP next version: not needed > > > > 1.2.3.1 > > Again, there are no patches since the patch that tagged version 1.2.3, > so no new release is needed. Again, this is just for the version number length. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
