(Moving lots of people to BCC. If you want to follow this discussion
it will continue on the glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org list.)
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Ian Lynagh
Please attribute any blame to me, not Paolo; he's only doing what I asked him to :-)
No blame to attribute. I just want to see things changed. :)
When following option 1, I think starting from the HEAD rather than the last release makes sense in general:
Maybe. It doesn't matter as I want (2).
* Some of the recent changes may have been to make the library work with GHC HEAD, and will therefore be necessary to work with the 7.6 branch
This works already today. I periodically get patches to e.g. network and containers to make it work with the current GHC HEAD. That seems to work fine.
* Some libraries will need to have version bumps, which means that other libraries will need to loosen their dependencies, which means another release will be needed anyway
GHC is no different that any other library here though. Library A is released and thus library B needs to be updated and released. The argument here is that the author of library A needs to make a release of the author of library B's package.
so I think it's a reasonable default. But if it doesn't apply for a particular library, then no problem, just let us know - that's why we're e-mailing you :-)
So at least don't make releases of containers (I think that's the only library I maintain that's released by GHC nowadays.) Can I please have this preference sticky in case I'm on vacation next time one of these emails go out? Aside: I don't believe this has happened yet but imagine the odd feeling of a library author, whose library was recently added as a GHC dependency, getting an email saying that if he/she doesn't reply GHC will make a release of his/her library!
That sounds like it would also work. I assume there's some way to pull to a tag.
git fetch (and thus pull) retrieves all branches and tags by default (and thus all commits pointed to by them.) Cheers, Johan