
"Duncan" == Duncan Coutts
writes:
Duncan> On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 12:56 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: >> On 2009 Mar 19, at 12:39, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2009 Mar 19, at 12:30, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>> "Max" == Max Rabkin
writes: >> >> >> >> Max> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Manlio Perillo >> >> Max> wrote: >> >> >> >> Max> Personally, I think that there is little harm in >> releasing a >> Max> package if it does something useful in a >> not-totally-broken >> Max> way. Especially if you plan to >> extend it. >> >> >> >> Suppose you intend to extend it, and are not sure yet if the >> >> interface >> will change as a result? >> > >> > Generally you indicate this by changing the minor version: >> 0.3.0, > 0.3.1, etc. have compatible APIs, but 0.4.0 has an >> incompatible > API. And with major version 0, API breakage is >> expected in new > releases.
Duncan> We call it the Package versioning policy (PVP) Duncan> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Package_versioning_policy Duncan> Package authors are encouraged but not required to follow Duncan> it. In the not too distant future you will be able to Duncan> explicitly opt-in, in which case we will try to check that Duncan> the package does indeed follow the policy and advising Duncan> authors of dependent packages about the kind of version Duncan> constraints they should use. I missed the upper bounds on dependencies. How am I supposed to know what the upper bound is? >> Oh, and to address your question more directly: it's by getting >> your package out there where people will find it (i.e. on >> hackage, since that's where people look) that you get more eyes >> on it and hopefully more ideas as to how to evolve it. Duncan> Yes, early feedback from users is invaluable in API Duncan> design. So I announced my library this morning (long before I was intending to, but you guys are persuasive). This is my first released Haskell code, so full code reviews will be welcome. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire