Re: 'temporary' package

You do raise a good point, should taking over maintainership of a library adhere to PVP expectations? On Friday, May 9, 2014, Erik Hesselink wrote:

I can see this. However, there are solutions available. Local forks you already mentioned (and setting up your own hackage is very easy), but there are also freeze files in cabal now. Additionally (sorry, I have to mention it) upper bounds make builds much more stable. This whole thing wouldn't have happened if 'temporary' had an upper bound on its dependency on 'exceptions'.

Of course your builds should stay working (which is why I advocate upper bounds) but there should also be a sense of package ownership, I think. The current trustee setup is meant for small fixes when an owner is gone/missing.

Erik

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Niklas Hambüchen javascript:;> wrote:

...

I can follow Roman's point and don't find it overreacting.

When you're building software on which your success depends (e.g. for your job or when it fuels your research), its very obstructing when the ecosystem around you breaks, and you want it fixed as soon as possible.

Of course having your own fork for everything solves that, but it'd be great to avoid that effort and it breaks a key good thing in the Haskell ecosystem: For many things there's only one package that does it right, and it would be nice to keep that up.

On 09/05/14 15:19, Erik Hesselink wrote:

...

Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your initial email...

Erik

---

Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org javascript:; http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries