On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:30:03PM -0700, John MacFarlane wrote:
I must say, I did pause a bit before making this change to pandoc on Hackage, precisely because I realized that the cabal file in the package would not match the one on Hackage.
But I went ahead, assuming that if the means were provided to make this kind of change, it should be okay.
It is time-consuming for me to make a proper pandoc release. I need to write up release notes, rebuild the website, generate and test the binary packages on various different platforms, upload to github releases and Hackage, send announcement emails, etc. Even with automation this all takes work. I'd rather not have to do this every time a version bound changes on a dependent package, so I like this way of making minor tweaks to version bounds; I hope I can be persuaded that it's not a bad idea.
I can fully appreciate the usefulness of the feature; most of the patches I make to package Haskell packages for Archlinux is of the kind that modifies dependency restrictions. I've read through the discussion at https://github.com/haskell/hackage-server/issues/52 but I see no one arguing for making this change a bit less intrusive and more opt-in for tools, e.g. by keeping 00-index as it's always been and then putting the Hackage edits of .cabals in an overlay (an 01-index). Has this been up for proposed/discussed somewhere else? /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@therning.org jabber: magnus@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus As long as there are ill-defined goals, bizarre bugs, and unrealistic schedules, there will be Real Programmers willing to jump in and Solve The Problem, saving the documentation for later. Long live Fortran! -- Ed Post