On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 09:57 -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote: > This thread is raising all sorts of questions for me:
[..] > The issue of putting the yet one more HP package into GHC's core packages > is increasing the exposure of the difficulty of the current GHC/HP > relationship. See also threads in HP's mailing list for why can't we bump > some packages in GHC's core set for the next HP release. The split > arrangement is strange because we have two groups making up what is in the > HP, but they have different processes and aims. The complex technical > relationship between the moving parts only heightens the difficulty. This is certainly worth thinking about. Perhaps parsec is the straw that broke the camel's back. It's not qualitatively different from the other core libs: for all of them we have the issue about version pinning and the effects on the release cycle. Duncan _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list cabal-devel@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel
