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

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? On Aug 15, 2012 1:45 PM, "Johan Tibell" wrote:

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:

...

So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being *added* will never happen again?

It would be useful to have some examples of these. I'm not sure we had any when we wrote the policy (but Duncan would know more), but rather reasoned our way to the current policy by saying that things can theoretically break if we don't have upper bounds, therefore we need them.

-- Johan

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe