On 16 August 2012 20:50, Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote: > "Bryan O'Sullivan" <b...@serpentine.com> writes: > >> I propose that the sense of the recommendation around upper bounds in the >> PVP be reversed: upper bounds should be specified *only when there is a >> known problem with a new version* of a depended-upon package. > > Another advantage to this is that it's not always clear what constitutes > an API change. I had to put an upper bound on binary, since 0.5 > introduced laziness changes that broke my program. (I later got some > help to implement a workaround, but binary-0.4.4 is still substantially > faster). Understandably, the authors didn't see this as a breaking API > change.
Except 0.4 -> 0.5 _is_ a major version bump according to the PVP. > > So, +1. > > -k > -- > If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants > > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com http://IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
