Re: [Haskell-cafe] Platform Versioning Policy: upper bounds are not our friends

it's usual for the existing upper bounds to refer to versions that don't exist at the time of writing (and hence can't be known to be stable).

Well, known to be stable given semantic versioning, then. http://semver.org/ On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, David Thomas wrote:

...

Would it make sense to have a known-to-be-stable-though soft upper bound added proactively, and a known-to-break-above hard bound added reactively, so people can loosen gracefully as appropriate?

I don't think so. It adds complexity, but more importantly it's usual for the existing upper bounds to refer to versions that don't exist at the time of writing (and hence can't be known to be stable). _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe