Just to keep the discussion on point, in this case bos is exposing additional modules, rather than exporting additional functions from existing modules, right? The danger is that a user of text is currently also using another package's, say, Data.Text.Util module.

Users can also defend themselves against this kind of change, by using package-qualified imports, though I don't think I've ever seen anyone do so preemptively (only in cases where there is a real existing conflict, like between mtl and monads-tf).

Regards,
Reid


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
The idea is that exposing a new function can be defended against by the user by using qualified imports. If you don't use qualified imports then minor version changes CAN break your code, even bough they rarely will.

If a something new is exposed in a module users were already importing like that it should be a minor bump so that users can defend themselves if they are sufficiently paranoid.

-Edward

> On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:20 AM, harry <voldermort@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Erik Hesselink wrote
>> Why make this a major bump? If it only exposes new things, it should
>> only have to be a minor bump, right?
>
> I just had a build break because a module I was importing exposed a new
> function that clashed with an existing function from a different module.
> Should potential build-breakers be a minor bump?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/text-warp-and-blaze-builder-tp5740884p5740929.html
> Sent from the Haskell - Libraries mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
Libraries@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries