Isaac Dupree wrote:
On 04/02/10 02:30, Greg Fitzgerald wrote:
if more packages want Parsec 2 then it's less disruption to split off parsec 3
Luckily, there is very little disruption to split off parsec 2.1 because there's no harm in leaving old packages as "parsec< 3".
I assert that there is harm. There will be duplicate packages installed (parsec-2.1 and parsec98-2.1) with identical code. Also, we would be committing to upload any bugfix/maintenance updates to both 'branches'.
Do you wish to argue that this is an acceptable level of harm? (I would be easily susceptible to such an argument...)
I'd argue that it's acceptable, at least under this plan: * fork parsec-2.1 as parsec2-2.1 * continue to develop parsec2-* (as desired) * deprecate parsec<3 with message to switch to parsec2-* * continue parsec>=3 as parsec-* The harm is minimal because: (a) anyone who is too lazy to upgrade their .cabal can still use parsec-2.1 until it bitrots (b) anyone who is too lazy to upgrade their code to parsec>=3 can just update their .cabal to use parsec2-* if they want to avoid bitrot (c) anyone using parsec>=3 won't notice a thing. -- Live well, ~wren