On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 12:56 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > On 2009 Mar 19, at 12:39, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > > On 2009 Mar 19, at 12:30, Colin Paul Adams wrote: > >>>>>>> "Max" == Max Rabkin <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> Max> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Manlio Perillo > >> Max> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Max> Personally, I think that there is little harm in releasing a > >> Max> package if it does something useful in a not-totally-broken > >> Max> way. Especially if you plan to extend it. > >> > >> Suppose you intend to extend it, and are not sure yet if the > >> interface > >> will change as a result? > > > > Generally you indicate this by changing the minor version: 0.3.0, > > 0.3.1, etc. have compatible APIs, but 0.4.0 has an incompatible > > API. And with major version 0, API breakage is expected in new > > releases.
We call it the Package versioning policy (PVP) http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Package_versioning_policy Package authors are encouraged but not required to follow it. In the not too distant future you will be able to explicitly opt-in, in which case we will try to check that the package does indeed follow the policy and advising authors of dependent packages about the kind of version constraints they should use. > Oh, and to address your question more directly: it's by getting your > package out there where people will find it (i.e. on hackage, since > that's where people look) that you get more eyes on it and hopefully > more ideas as to how to evolve it. Yes, early feedback from users is invaluable in API design. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
