Proposal on the platform API policy question

[Duncan Coutts]

All,

Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:

      * Bug fix only in minor releases
      * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
      * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
      * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months

We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could
people indicate if they think they can support this.

Note that there are plenty of other issues that we have yet to address,
so don't worry that we're not talking about those yet. We raised this
issue first because we need a decision.

Details:

      * "bug fix only" means no api changes or additions in library
        packages and no new user-accessible features in programs. In
        terms of the PVP it means only the 4th digit may increment, eg
        X.Y.Z.0 -> X.Y.Z.1.
      * Having the platform following the PVP means the next minor
        release will be 2009.2.0.1 (rather than 2009.2.1) to indicate
        that it has (or more accurately it's constituents have)  the
        exact same API as the previous major release. In general the
        version will be of the form "X.Y.0.Z" with "X.Y" being the major
        version and Z the minor.
      * Initially using a 4 month major release cycle means we'll get
        one release before ghc 6.12 and another after (assuming 6.12 is
        released in November again).
      * After 12 months we'll review (via this mailing list) the release
        cycle frequency based on the experience of 4 month release
        cycles and with input from HP users, HP package maintainers and
        HP release wranglers.

Duncan

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

[Johan Tibell-2]

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Duncan Coutts <[hidden email]> wrote:

All,

Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:

     * Bug fix only in minor releases
     * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
     * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
     * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months

We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could
people indicate if they think they can support this.

I support this proposal.

Cheers,

Johan
 

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

[Ross Paterson]

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:54:13PM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
> compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
> raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
>
>       * Bug fix only in minor releases
>       * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
>       * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
>       * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months

Sounds good.  Perhaps it would be less confusing to use PVP terminology
for HP too, i.e. avoid speaking of minor releases and call them patchlevel
releases.  (In those terms, HP will not have minor releases.)
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

[Duncan Coutts]

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 00:45 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:

> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:54:13PM +0000, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> > Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
> > compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
> > raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
> >
> >       * Bug fix only in minor releases
> >       * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
> >       * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
> >       * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
>
> Sounds good.  Perhaps it would be less confusing to use PVP terminology
> for HP too, i.e. avoid speaking of minor releases and call them patchlevel
> releases.  (In those terms, HP will not have minor releases.)

Good idea.

Duncan

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

[Magnus Therning]

Duncan Coutts wrote:

> All,
>
> Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
> compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
> raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
>
>       * Bug fix only in minor releases
>       * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
>       * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
>       * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
>
> We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could
> people indicate if they think they can support this.

Sounds like a good compromise based on the discussion.  As a user of HP I'd be
happy with that :-)

I'd also be comfortable with you and Don having the final word on decisions
like this.  That is, I'd be all right with rough consensus on matters relating
to HP :-)

/M

--
Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
[e-mail]          Jabber: [e-mail]
http://therning.org/magnus         identi.ca|twitter: magthe


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

[Sittampalam, Ganesh]

Duncan Coutts wrote:
 
> We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could
> people indicate if they think they can support this.

Sounds good to me.

Ganesh

===============================================================================
 Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer:
 http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html 
 ===============================================================================
 
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

[wren ng thornton-2]

Ross Paterson wrote:
 > Duncan Coutts wrote:
 > > Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
 > > compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
 > > raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
 > >
 > >       * Bug fix only in minor releases
 > >       * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
 > >       * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
 > >       * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months

Sounds like a good plan.

 > Sounds good.  Perhaps it would be less confusing to use PVP
 > terminology for HP too, i.e. avoid speaking of minor releases
 > and call them patchlevel releases.  (In those terms, HP will
 > not have minor releases.)

+1.


Duncan Coutts wrote:
 > Details:
 >
 >       * "bug fix only" means no api changes or additions in library
 >         packages and no new user-accessible features in programs. In
 >         terms of the PVP it means only the 4th digit may increment, eg
 >         X.Y.Z.0 -> X.Y.Z.1.

The one thing I'd like to highlight again is the issue of "strictness
bugfixes". This is more of a PVP definition issue than a HP release
issue, but it is one that should be resolved so the HP doesn't incur
surprises.

--
Live well,
~wren
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

[Ben Moseley]

Sounds good.

--Ben

On 20 May 2009, at 23:54, Duncan Coutts wrote:

> All,
>
> Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent discussion on API
> compatibility in minor platform releases. In response to the points
> raised, Don and I would like to propose the following:
>
>      * Bug fix only in minor releases
>      * Change platform version numbers to follow the PVP
>      * 4 month major release cycles for the first 12 months
>      * Review major release cycle frequency after 12 months
>
> We hope we can achieve consensus around this proposal. Please could
> people indicate if they think they can support this.
>
> Note that there are plenty of other issues that we have yet to  
> address,
> so don't worry that we're not talking about those yet. We raised this
> issue first because we need a decision.
>
> Details:
>
>      * "bug fix only" means no api changes or additions in library
>        packages and no new user-accessible features in programs. In
>        terms of the PVP it means only the 4th digit may increment, eg
>        X.Y.Z.0 -> X.Y.Z.1.
>      * Having the platform following the PVP means the next minor
>        release will be 2009.2.0.1 (rather than 2009.2.1) to indicate
>        that it has (or more accurately it's constituents have)  the
>        exact same API as the previous major release. In general the
>        version will be of the form "X.Y.0.Z" with "X.Y" being the  
> major
>        version and Z the minor.
>      * Initially using a 4 month major release cycle means we'll get
>        one release before ghc 6.12 and another after (assuming 6.12 is
>        released in November again).
>      * After 12 months we'll review (via this mailing list) the  
> release
>        cycle frequency based on the experience of 4 month release
>        cycles and with input from HP users, HP package maintainers and
>        HP release wranglers.
>
> Duncan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries