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. cc'ing Ross who is maintainer of this package.
========== 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. cc'ing Don who is maintainer of this package. All your other version suggestions look fine to me. Since we're moving to a model where extralibs is just a bundling of existing releases rather than necessarily fresh releases itself, then we do not need to re-release existing packages where there have been no changes, we can just use the existing packages as is. Indeed, as I've said I'd like to see all these packages go up on hackage soon and not necessarily synchronised with the release of ghc. For example, I've already released Cabal-1.2.1 and binary-0.9. Ross and Don have already released arrows-0.3 and X11-1.2.3. I expect ghc-6.8.1 will come with a later minor revision of Cabal (Solaris fixes etc) but it'll most probably use exactly the bytestring-0.9 that I've already released. Not that there is anything stopping us from doing a 0.9.0.1 release if we do need to make more changes, just that it's not essential that we do so if we make no changes.
I believe all the core library version numbers are OK, except I will append .0's until they become 4-component.
Right. Duncan