On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Michael Snoyman
But that's only one half of the "package interoperability" issue. I face this first hand on a daily basis with my Stackage maintenance. I spend far more time reporting issues of restrictive upper bounds than I do with broken builds from upstream changes. So I look at this as purely a game of statistics: are you more likely to have code break because version 1.2 of text changes the type of the map function and you didn't have an upper bound, or because two dependencies of yours have *conflicting* versions bounds on a package like aeson[2]? In my experience, the latter occurs far more often than the former.
I have a question for you. Is it better to save a developer some work, or is it better to force that work onto end users? Because we keep constantly seeing examples where saving the developer some upper bounds PVP work forces users to deal with unexpected errors, but since Haskell developers don't see that user pain it is considered irrelevant/nonexistent and certainly not any justification for saving developers some work. Personally, I think any ecosystem which strongly prefers pushing versioning pain points onto end users instead of developers is doing itself a severe disservice. Are there things that could be improved about versioning policy? Absolutely. But pushing problems onto end users is not an improvement. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allbery.b@gmail.com ballbery@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net