I've updated the proposal with increased motivation as suggested, and submitted it to the repo.
Here is the discussion thread: https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/115 --g On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > | current existing "search path-like" functionality where a chain of > | overlays may live over a repo. The proposal does not address that, > | because it is how things work already -- although arguably, the way in > | which this works may be insufficiently understood among existing cabal > | users? > > Well I can say with certainty that it's insufficiently understood by /this/ > cabal user. > > I had no idea there could be more than one repo, which 'cabal update' caches > locally. > > Simon > > | -----Original Message----- > | From: Gershom B [mailto:gersh...@gmail.com] > | Sent: 23 February 2018 15:02 > | To: Simon Peyton Jones <simo...@microsoft.com> > | Cc: cabal-devel <email@example.com> > | Subject: Re: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies > | > | Thanks for these comments Simon. It is good to have a sanity-check on > | these proposals before they go before a broad audience. I'll try to > | take them into account and submit this properly as a proposal > | (including creating the associated discussion thread) in the next few > | days. If anyone else has any thoughts (bear in mind this involves > | cross-cutting changes across cabal files and a bit of ghc) please send > | them on. > | > | On "Does a particular build have to use packages from one repo only?" > | -- the idea is that _per package_ a provenance may be specified to a > | specific repo. If no provenance is specified, then there is the > | current existing "search path-like" functionality where a chain of > | overlays may live over a repo. The proposal does not address that, > | because it is how things work already -- although arguably, the way in > | which this works may be insufficiently understood among existing cabal > | users? (In fact, looking at the cabal documentation, I see that the > | description of multiple remote repos doesn't specify the manner in > | which they are combined, which it should). > | > | Cheers, > | Gershom > | > | On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Simon Peyton Jones > | <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: > | > Gershom > | > > | > Looks like a great idea. > | > > | > Lots of questions though: > | > > | > > | > - I think more motivation would be helpful. E.g. "You are in change > | > of the GHC 8.6 release. Package authors don't want to upload a > | new > | > version of their packages until 8.6 is out, but you still want to > | > smoke-test 8.6 against their packages. Doing so requires some > | minor > | > changes (version bounds, changes in base-library APIs etc); so you > | > want to be able to make these changes in a sandbox that won't hurt > | > anyone". Or something like that. > | > > | > Maybe describe other use-cases. It's *much* easier to evaluate > | > a proposal when I'm totally clear what it's for. > | > > | > - Does a particular build have to use packages from one repo only? > | > Or is there something like a "search path"? > | > > | > Thanks! > | > > | > Simon > | > > | > | -----Original Message----- > | > | From: cabal-devel [mailto:cabal-devel-boun...@haskell.org] On > | > | Behalf Of Gershom B > | > | Sent: 19 February 2018 00:26 > | > | To: cabal-devel <firstname.lastname@example.org> > | > | Subject: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies > | > | > | > | Hey all, I mentioned (on the long SLURP thread) that I was > | thinking > | > | about a general proposal for provenance-qualified dependencies to > | > | reduce coupling in the haskell ecosystem. Having worked it out a > | > | bit, I think the bigger win is it also provides a way to specify > | > | dependencies on git repos, etc., which has been an oft-requested > | > | feature. > | > | > | > | I don't want to submit it as an ecosystem proposal proper without > | > | further polish, and I held off on bugging a larger audience of > | cabal > | > | folks until the 2.2 branch was cut. So now I'm passing this along > | > | for further comment and polish before I make a real proposal: > | > | > | > | > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit > | > | hu > | > | b.com%2Fgbaz%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fpatch-1%2Fproposals%2F0000- > | > | provenance-qualified- > | > | > | > | > | imports.rst&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b2 > | > | 4d > | > | > | > | > | 28508d5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6365459 > | > | 67 > | > | > | 936143539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz > | > | Ii > | > | LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C- > | > | > | > | > | 1&sdata=cH0gNADmzA%2BTkmXZEDY6lLYUTx2D2KX%2B3T8KO%2FvU86s%3D&reserve > | > | d= > | > | 0 > | > | > | > | There's no urgency, but it would be good to get some feedback in > | > | the next few weeks if possible. > | > | > | > | Cheers, > | > | Gershom > | > | _______________________________________________ > | > | cabal-devel mailing list > | > | email@example.com > | > | > | > | > | https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail > | > | .h > | > | askell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcabal- > | > | > | > | > | devel&data=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b24d2850 > | > | 8d > | > | > | > | > | 5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6365459679361 > | > | 43 > | > | > | 539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB > | > | Ti > | > | I6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C- > | > | > | 1&sdata=fgfMNTNt%2BwEQ5PaTKxtl0bmO7wDv9sBiMUnWSbJhcnE%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ cabal-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel