On 6 November 2010 15:18, Don Stewart <d...@galois.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > This is a loose end in the package policy situation: when the HP has a > major upgrade, the policy is to do all major upgrades for any packages > contained in the HP, as long as they don't add new dependencies. > > One exception to this rule has been parsec, where parsec 2 was > considered "blessed" on an ad hoc basis. > > I propose we agree to remove this ad hoc rule, and thus the HP will ship > with parsec 3. > > Does anyone have concerns with this?
Yes. I think that if a package has a significant discontinuity then it has to be reconsidered at least to some degree. In the case of parsec 2 and 3, initially parsec 3 was an experimental new version, by different authors. It was not initially clear if it would be an obvious replacement, if it was functionally correct and if the performance or documentation was up to scratch compared to version 2. Personally I would be satisfied if the current maintainer(s) would state that they believe the current parsec 3 release is up to standard and that they believe it should become the new version in the platform. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
