| 17 Oct 2024 |
 sterni | In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.de
otoh, as soon as you publish something on hackage good bound hygiene is mandatory. you can set x-curated to exclude yourself from curation then you're neither obliged to maintain bounds nor follow PVP | 15:41:11 |
| sterni | not sure what that setting actually influences though… | 15:41:19 |
| sterni | I think bound management can become easy if someone sits down and writes a little bit of tooling, basically you just need to get notified about releases in your dependencies and then be provided with a install plan to easily test the new possibility | 15:42:38 |
| sterni | this could probably even be automated completely | 15:42:50 |
 maralorn | Well I didn't mean there is a rule, just that it is helpful to consumers. | 15:43:41 |
| maralorn | I mean nomeata automated a significant chunk of that with the cabal bounds stuff. | 15:44:53 |
 toonn | Even without tooling it's often pretty easy in my experience. | 15:52:24 |
| toonn | Once the API starts changing it's probably not worth perserving buildability with older versions on newer releases anyway. | 15:52:50 |
| toonn | *preserving | 15:52:58 |
 fgaz | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
I think bound management can become easy if someone sits down and writes a little bit of tooling, basically you just need to get notified about releases in your dependencies and then be provided with a install plan to easily test the new possibility the first part is already there. you can enable notifications in hackage settings | 16:08:39 |
| sterni | neat! | 16:08:51 |
| sterni | In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.de
I mean nomeata automated a significant chunk of that with the cabal bounds stuff. that was the literal opposite solution of what I had in mind though | 16:09:08 |
| sterni | iirc it just takes the current plan and converts it into PVP bounds a priori, so they are probably too tight | 16:09:37 |
| sterni | * iirc it just takes the current plan and converts it into PVP bounds a priori, so they are probably too tight in practice | 16:09:46 |
|  @sammy:cherrykitten.dev left the room. | 18:24:53 |
| 18 Oct 2024 |
 chreekat | https://hackage.haskell.org/upload#versioning_and_curation regarding the x-curation field | 08:31:02 |
 emily | hmm, what is the purpose of Hackage offering to host packages that are explicitly opting out of playing well with the ecosystem…? | 08:33:11 |
| emily | I remember controversy over metadata revisions but not that it had reached this point | 08:33:18 |
| chreekat | as best I can tell, it was a compromise made at the height of the controversy. Packages lacking bounds already existed, then revisions started happening, some people wanted to be able to opt out | 08:34:27 |
| emily | yeah. seems reasonable to say that if you want your code on Hackage then you have to play nice, but I do remember fights about it. | 08:35:15 |
| emily | I wonder if any package actually sets the "don't email me" value 😅 | 08:35:34 |
| chreekat | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
I think bound management can become easy if someone sits down and writes a little bit of tooling, basically you just need to get notified about releases in your dependencies and then be provided with a install plan to easily test the new possibility this has existed for a long time. It's Stackage. :) | 08:36:27 |
| chreekat | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I wonder if any package actually sets the "don't email me" value 😅 lol yeah. I find it funny that the setting doesn't seem to opt you out of curation at all. It just lets you stop getting emails about it... | 08:36:58 |
| emily | I think it's implicit in saying that it's a variant of uncurated, which "choose[s] to exclude individual package uploads from curation" | 08:37:34 |
| chreekat | But then it also says, " Trustees or maintainers may adopt uncurated packages into the curated layer through metadata revisions. " | 08:39:03 |
| chreekat | to be fair I don't really understand what that means | 08:40:05 |
| emily | oh, true indeed. and then wtf does uncurated-seeking-adoption mean given that | 08:40:50 |
| emily | classic political compromise I guess | 08:41:07 |
| chreekat | with a hint of passive aggressiveness | 08:41:17 |
| emily | I'm going to assume 3 really angry people used this functionality religiously for a year and nobody else ever has | 08:41:17 |
