no one is disputing that there are conditional changes in dependencies depending on library versions.
an interesting intermediate point would be have a notion of "testing with " constraints in cabal and engineering cabal to support a "--withTestedConstraints" to have a simple composable way of handling constructing build plans. at the end of the day, its an engineering problem coupled with a social factors problem. Those are hard :) On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being >> > *added* will never happen again? >> >> It would be useful to have some examples of these. I'm not sure we had >> > > Upper package versions did not originally exist, and nobody wanted them. > You can see the result in at least half the packages on Hackage: upper > versions came in when base got broken up, and when bytestring was merged > into base --- both of which caused massive breakage that apparently even > the people around at the time and involved with it no longer remember. > > I'm not going to argue the point though; ignore history and remove them if > you desire. > > -- > brandon s allbery allber...@gmail.com > wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms > > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
