Re: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies

[Gershom B]

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 <cabal-devel@haskell.org>
> |  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 <cabal-devel@haskell.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-propo

RE: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies

[Simon Peyton Jones]

|  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 <cabal-devel@haskell.org>
|  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 <cabal-devel@haskell.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%2F-
|  > |  provenance-qualified-
|  > |
|  > |
|  imports.rst=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b2
|  > | 4d
|  > |
|  > |
|  28508d5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6365459
|  > | 67
|  > |
|  936143539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMz
|  > | Ii
|  > |  LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-
|  > |
|  > |
|  1=cH0gNADmzA%2BTkmXZEDY6lLYUTx2D2KX%2B3T8KO%2FvU86s%3D
|  > | d=
|  > |  0
|  > |
|  > |  There's no urgency, but it would be good to get some feedback in
|  > | the  next few weeks if possible.
|  > |
|  > |  Cheers,
|  > |  Gershom
|  > |  __

Re: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies

[Gershom B]

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
 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 
> |  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%2Fgithu
> |  b.com%2Fgbaz%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fpatch-1%2Fproposals%2F-
> |  provenance-qualified-
> |  imports.rst=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b24d
> |  28508d5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636545967
> |  936143539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi
> |  LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-
> |  1=cH0gNADmzA%2BTkmXZEDY6lLYUTx2D2KX%2B3T8KO%2FvU86s%3D=
> |  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
> |  cabal-devel@haskell.org
> |  https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.h
> |  askell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcabal-
> |  devel=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b24d28508d
> |  5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636545967936143
> |  539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi
> |  I6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-
> |  1=fgfMNTNt%2BwEQ5PaTKxtl0bmO7wDv9sBiMUnWSbJhcnE%3D=0
___
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel

RE: draft proposal on provenance-qualified dependencies

[Simon Peyton Jones]

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 
|  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%2Fgithu
|  b.com%2Fgbaz%2Fghc-proposals%2Fblob%2Fpatch-1%2Fproposals%2F-
|  provenance-qualified-
|  imports.rst=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b24d
|  28508d5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636545967
|  936143539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi
|  LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-
|  1=cH0gNADmzA%2BTkmXZEDY6lLYUTx2D2KX%2B3T8KO%2FvU86s%3D=
|  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
|  cabal-devel@haskell.org
|  https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmail.h
|  askell.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcabal-
|  devel=04%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C64fd20012b9a4b24d28508d
|  5772f6cf2%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636545967936143
|  539%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTi
|  I6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-
|  1=fgfMNTNt%2BwEQ5PaTKxtl0bmO7wDv9sBiMUnWSbJhcnE%3D=0
___
cabal-devel mailing list
cabal-devel@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cabal-devel