5 ms·

>The theory that upper bounds should be eliminated - which was, I think, no good - is demonstrably independent of the FPComplete people. No, it is not. Every

>The theory that upper bounds should be eliminated - which was, I think, no good - is demonstrably independent of the FPComplete people. No, it is not. Every FP complete employee does this. All of their packages are missing upper bounds. They actively promote not using upper bounds, writing blog posts and reddit comments telling people to violate the PVP. Just because they are not the only ones who do it, does not mean it is "independent" of them. They do it without fail, and they promote doing it to others. >It just is a fact that `cabal-install` was not ready for the existence of the phenomenon of the immense industrial Haskell build. That is not a fact, it is a fiction. Cabal-install did and still does work fantastically for our immense industrial haskell builds. Just broken packages like yesod were problems. And they were not problems with cabal-install, they were problems with people not understanding the consequences of no upper bounds, and expecting things that can not be possible to "just work". Stack did not solve this problem in any way, it simply bypassed it by restricting the set of packages to one curated set of versions.

massysett 10y ago
So you maintain immense industrial Haskell builds, presumably for pay. Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  >Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. I have no idea how you came up with that absurd non-sequitur. >Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans. Nothing in that is accurate at all. There is nothing arbitrary about a cabal build plan.
  - massysett 10y ago
    Since Yesod builds just fine, explain how it is "broken"?
    - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
      The fallacy of that argument is assuming that tool X being able to build artifact Y means that X is "sane". The only thing this says is that tool X is able to build Y, nothing more and nothing less. For instance, I could easily implement a tool which is only capable to build `yesod`, and only `yesod`. Would that be a "sane" build-tool?
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > > Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. > I have no idea how you came up with that absurd non-sequitur. You can dispute the accuracy, but "the PVP as written puts too much burden on maintainers" was a part of the justification at the time for removing upper bounds. See, for instance, the following from someone with no connection to FP Complete that I'm aware of: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-August/102894.html https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-August/... "As someone who recurrently is nudging a large number of maintainers every major ghc release to bump their bounds, I favor the no upper bounds approach!" It was not a non-sequitur, but an objection to your assertion that there was no problem with the PVP.
    - hvr_ 10y ago
      > See, for instance, the following from someone with no connection to FP Complete that I'm aware of You may be interested to know that Carter (the guy you're quoting) knows better today, and has even become a Hackage Trustee whose mission is more or less to uphold those very PVP upper bounds ;-)
      - dllthomas 10y ago
        Amusing, but orthogonal to my point, which was that the move away from parts of the PVP was motivated by real concerns, and moreover that the comment above was specifically an obvious reference to concerns that had been voiced during that time. I am not arguing that the move away from the PVP was correct - I was uncertain at the time and I remain uncertain.
- HaskellMuppet 10y ago
  You should read up on the PvP before you comment on something you clearly don't understand well yet (unless you're knowingly misrepresenting the facts and using hyperbole on purpose in the interest of spreading FUD).
  - massysett 10y ago
    I understand every iota of the PVP.
    - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
      Then I don't understand why you're deliberately spreading FUD about the PvP.
michaelt_ 10y ago
The question is historical. I think you can't have been making your immense industrial build in the years immediately preceding `Wed Aug 15 14:54:44 UTC 2012` when `yesod` signed on to Brian O'Sullivan's plan of omitting upper bounds throughout Hackage (a plan which on your view must itself have arisen from O'Sullivan's madness and incompetence or vested interest in a non-existent FPComplete that he never had anything to do with, since there was of course no problem at all, it was just a fiction he cooked up). `yesod`s 2012 act of compliance was on your view calculated by FPComplete (founded 2013) to take over Haskell by means of a then non-existent `stack` tool (2015). On that day, the installation of `yesod`, a perfectly innocent web-related library, required the installation of 145 distinct Hackage packages, as you can verify with a couple of commands. The previous record was held by the pandoc executable which in the form it took on that same fateful day (pandoc-1.9.4.2) required the installation of only 47 distinct packages. Yet in the previous years unlimited amounts of ink had been spilt on the pandoc list and #haskell explaining what was going wrong when pandoc users tried to build the newest version with the feature they had prayed for. With `yesod` things were now completely out of control. This had nothing whatsoever to do with `yesod` or anything else being in itself broken. `yesod` presumably did actually need e.g. `x509-validation` and `aeson-pretty`. Other packages went over to the plan announced by O'Sullivan too, though most of them reverted. --All of this, on your view, was part of a hostile take-over plan by the non-existent FPComplete. You are by the way of course benefitting from stackage in ways you are not recognizing, though, like me, you are not a regular stack user. It is very familiar that before stackage, there was much less coherence among the Hackage libraries. Things were best about one month after a new ghc was released.
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  I don't understand why you keep bringing up bos's question. How does one person wondering aloud if PVP is good or not make anything I've said inaccurate? As the bulk of your post is responding to a strawman you created, I'll allow you to provide the voice for it yourself.
  - michaelt_ 10y ago
    It's clear that you weren't around then and don't have the historical knowledge necessary to have a view about this. This isn't stopping you from spreading absurd libels.
tome 10y ago
> Every FP complete employee does this. And plenty of non FP Complete employees do this. What's your point?
- MustardTiger 10y ago
  Why are all of your replies in this thread empty of content?
  - michaelt_ 10y ago
    It's not empty of content, it is devastating to your argument. Check out the upper bounds among these packages http://hackage.haskell.org/user/BryanOSullivan http://hackage.haskell.org/user/BryanOSullivan e.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wreq http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wreq ... there are some, same as there are some for e.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/http-client http://hackage.haskell.org/package/http-client . Not that I approve of this.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      It is completely irrelevant to my argument. My argument is "FP complete employees do X". Saying "so do some other people" changes nothing, it is completely and totally irrelevant. "The sky is blue." "Well so are my slippers! HAHA I devastated your argument!".
      - michaelt_ 10y ago
        That wasn't your argument at all. I know and constantly affirmed that many people do and have removed upper bounds, and that I myself oppose it. Your 'argument' is the absurd falsification that this practice was introduced to sell BSD3 software that appeared 3 years after the practice was introduced, by a company that appeared over a year after the practice was introduced. What you are doing is unconscionable and destructive.
        MustardTiger 10y ago

massysett 10y ago

So you maintain immense industrial Haskell builds, presumably for pay. Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans.

MustardTiger 10y ago
>Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. I have no idea how you came up with that absurd non-sequitur. >Yesod is not broken. It builds just fine using a sane build tool. Yesod does not become broken because you insist on using a tool that crafts arbitrary build plans. Nothing in that is accurate at all. There is nothing arbitrary about a cabal build plan.
- massysett 10y ago
  Since Yesod builds just fine, explain how it is "broken"?
  - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
    The fallacy of that argument is assuming that tool X being able to build artifact Y means that X is "sane". The only thing this says is that tool X is able to build Y, nothing more and nothing less. For instance, I could easily implement a tool which is only capable to build `yesod`, and only `yesod`. Would that be a "sane" build-tool?
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > > Yet you expect other people, many of them volunteers, to take up the busywork of bounds maintenance, for free, so that your immense builds work. > I have no idea how you came up with that absurd non-sequitur. You can dispute the accuracy, but "the PVP as written puts too much burden on maintainers" was a part of the justification at the time for removing upper bounds. See, for instance, the following from someone with no connection to FP Complete that I'm aware of: https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-August/102894.html https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2012-August/... "As someone who recurrently is nudging a large number of maintainers every major ghc release to bump their bounds, I favor the no upper bounds approach!" It was not a non-sequitur, but an objection to your assertion that there was no problem with the PVP.
  - hvr_ 10y ago
    > See, for instance, the following from someone with no connection to FP Complete that I'm aware of You may be interested to know that Carter (the guy you're quoting) knows better today, and has even become a Hackage Trustee whose mission is more or less to uphold those very PVP upper bounds ;-)
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Amusing, but orthogonal to my point, which was that the move away from parts of the PVP was motivated by real concerns, and moreover that the comment above was specifically an obvious reference to concerns that had been voiced during that time. I am not arguing that the move away from the PVP was correct - I was uncertain at the time and I remain uncertain.
HaskellMuppet 10y ago
You should read up on the PvP before you comment on something you clearly don't understand well yet (unless you're knowingly misrepresenting the facts and using hyperbole on purpose in the interest of spreading FUD).
- massysett 10y ago
  I understand every iota of the PVP.
  - HaskellMuppet 10y ago
    Then I don't understand why you're deliberately spreading FUD about the PvP.

michaelt_ 10y ago

The question is historical. I think you can't have been making your immense industrial build in the years immediately preceding `Wed Aug 15 14:54:44 UTC 2012` when `yesod` signed on to Brian O'Sullivan's plan of omitting upper bounds throughout Hackage (a plan which on your view must itself have arisen from O'Sullivan's madness and incompetence or vested interest in a non-existent FPComplete that he never had anything to do with, since there was of course no problem at all, it was just a fiction he cooked up). `yesod`s 2012 act of compliance was on your view calculated by FPComplete (founded 2013) to take over Haskell by means of a then non-existent `stack` tool (2015). On that day, the installation of `yesod`, a perfectly innocent web-related library, required the installation of 145 distinct Hackage packages, as you can verify with a couple of commands. The previous record was held by the pandoc executable which in the form it took on that same fateful day (pandoc-1.9.4.2) required the installation of only 47 distinct packages. Yet in the previous years unlimited amounts of ink had been spilt on the pandoc list and #haskell explaining what was going wrong when pandoc users tried to build the newest version with the feature they had prayed for. With `yesod` things were now completely out of control. This had nothing whatsoever to do with `yesod` or anything else being in itself broken. `yesod` presumably did actually need e.g. `x509-validation` and `aeson-pretty`. Other packages went over to the plan announced by O'Sullivan too, though most of them reverted. --All of this, on your view, was part of a hostile take-over plan by the non-existent FPComplete. You are by the way of course benefitting from stackage in ways you are not recognizing, though, like me, you are not a regular stack user. It is very familiar that before stackage, there was much less coherence among the Hackage libraries. Things were best about one month after a new ghc was released.

MustardTiger 10y ago
I don't understand why you keep bringing up bos's question. How does one person wondering aloud if PVP is good or not make anything I've said inaccurate? As the bulk of your post is responding to a strawman you created, I'll allow you to provide the voice for it yourself.
- michaelt_ 10y ago
  It's clear that you weren't around then and don't have the historical knowledge necessary to have a view about this. This isn't stopping you from spreading absurd libels.

tome 10y ago

> Every FP complete employee does this. And plenty of non FP Complete employees do this. What's your point?

MustardTiger 10y ago
Why are all of your replies in this thread empty of content?
- michaelt_ 10y ago
  It's not empty of content, it is devastating to your argument. Check out the upper bounds among these packages http://hackage.haskell.org/user/BryanOSullivan http://hackage.haskell.org/user/BryanOSullivan e.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wreq http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wreq ... there are some, same as there are some for e.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/http-client http://hackage.haskell.org/package/http-client . Not that I approve of this.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    It is completely irrelevant to my argument. My argument is "FP complete employees do X". Saying "so do some other people" changes nothing, it is completely and totally irrelevant. "The sky is blue." "Well so are my slippers! HAHA I devastated your argument!".
    - michaelt_ 10y ago
      That wasn't your argument at all. I know and constantly affirmed that many people do and have removed upper bounds, and that I myself oppose it. Your 'argument' is the absurd falsification that this practice was introduced to sell BSD3 software that appeared 3 years after the practice was introduced, by a company that appeared over a year after the practice was introduced. What you are doing is unconscionable and destructive.
      - MustardTiger 10y ago