I wrote WinIO a couple of times when I meant to type Win32. Sorry!

On 23 January 2022 1:32:15 pm IST, Zubin Duggal <zu...@well-typed.com> wrote:
>>   - More serious: why was Win32 major bumped from 2.10 to 2.12?
>>      - this breaks foundation, hence current Stackage Nightly is kind of
>>      broken for Windows now:
>>      https://github.com/commercialhaskell/stackage/issues/6400
>We needed to bump Win32 as per a request from the maintainer made at
>Bumping it from 2.10.0 to ran into
>https://github.com/haskell/win32/issues/174, which was fixed by
>Given this, our options at the time were:
>1) Backport pull request #175 to 2.10.1 and wait for a new release of Win32
>2) Revert https://github.com/haskell/win32/pull/160 in Win32 2.10,
>    which is what caused WinIO/#174
>3) Use Win32, which contains the requested fix(ghc/#20017), as
>    well as the explicit exports added by #175, along with a few other minor
>    changes from Win32 2.11 which I don't think are responsible for any of
>    the pain discussed in the stackage issue.
>I made the decision to go with option 3 in the interests of getting the
>release out. 
>However, if I understand correctly, we would still end up with the same
>problems as brought up in the stackage issue if we went with option 1.
>We might have avoided some of this pain if we went with option 2 and
>reverted the offending commits from WinIO 2.10 instead of using explicit
>import lists. But removing features from a major release of a library
>didn't seem like a good idea at a time, and would have delayed the 9.0.2
>release even more.
>I hope this makes the reasoning for the decision clearer, and I
>do apologise for any pain caused. I did believe that under the
>circumstances bumping WinIO to was the best way forward.
>Perhaps option 2 would have been better in retrospect, but at the
>time the benefits for such a change (in particular the regression in
>functionality) in a major release of Win32 were not so clear.
>Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list

Reply via email to