Hacker News Reader

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.

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).

I understand every iota of the PVP.

Then I don't understand why you're deliberately spreading FUD about the PvP.

>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.

> > 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/...

"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.

> 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 ;-)

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.

The concerns you're talking about here were primarily deficiencies in tooling, not an inherent problem with the PVP. Many of those deficiencies have been fixed (for example, --allow-newer) or there is work in progress that will fix them (cabal new-build, cabal.project files, etc).

That may very well be the case. Again, I'm not arguing about the PVP. I'm arguing that discussion of those concerns is not non sequitur.

> 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/....

Yes, people make mistakes. He no longer favors that approach, as he learned how bad it is. The difference is that FPC employees still continue to push it even when they know the problems.

You seem to miss my point. I am not arguing that the move away from upper bounds was correct - I was uncertain at the time and I remain uncertain.

My point was that the comment above was specifically an obvious reference to concerns that had been voiced during that time (and speculation as to why they might have been less relevant to you) - far from an "absurd non-sequitur."

>My point was that the comment above was specifically an obvious reference to concerns that had been voiced during that time

I am aware of that. And again, that in no way contradicts or discredits what I said. Which was that FP complete employees consistently do this. I never said they were the only people who do it. I never said they were the first people to do it. I said they do it. I really do not understand where the confusion is coming from.

You keep acting as if the only claim you've made in this entire discussion was that FP Complete employees do not include upper bounds. It's certainly not the case that anything we've been discussing has bearing on that. But that's not an honest characterization of your comments in this thread.

You said (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12058419):

> The tool does not fix real problems. It avoids a real problem, which the authors of the tool created in the first place. The problem does not exist if packages use upper version bounds.

The implicit assertion in the following comments (which I found painfully clear, but maybe you genuinely missed it - surely we read from different contexts) was: Even if the tooling only solves a problem introduced by particular practices, it can be a "real problem" if those practices address a real problem themselves.

You are responding to a strawman, and still trying to pretend it has something to do with me. What I said is what I said, and is what I meant. What you wish I meant has nothing to do with me.

I am responding to what you wrote. I quoted it. If I am misunderstanding it, please explain how.

Or you know what, don't. I'm growing convinced that you're not engaging in good faith anywhere in this thread. And if this is going to be regular practice, please GTFO of the Haskell community.

The hypocrisy you just displayed is almost unbelievable.

There is no hypocrisy.

I am engaging in good faith, as I have always done. I have done so under this same name, here, on r/haskell, on haskell-cafe and haskell-beginners, on #haskell, and in person.

I said that if you are engaged in bad faith, and if you will persist in doing so, you need to GTFO. I stand by that statement.

That you perceive yourself to be acting in good faith and me to be acting otherwise does not make it hypocrisy.

If you are intending to engage in good faith, please observe that - at the very least - we seem to be having a bad time successfully communicating in this format. Perhaps we can try some other medium? If you're in the bay area, I'll buy you a beer (or social equivalent).

>I am engaging in good faith

That is very hard to believe consider the amount of dishonest rhetoric on display.

>I said that if you are engaged in bad faith, and if you will persist in doing so, you need to GTFO

You did not. You said if I continue I need to GTFO. I am not engaging in bad faith, I am being honest and clear, and you are respond with ridiculous strawman attacks.

>If you're in the bay area, I'll buy you a beer (or social equivalent).

I'm in a very different bay area than the one I assume you refer to. I do not see any reason why text is a problem. You simply need to read the words I write and respond to that, rather than read then, make up an imaginary version of me, give that imaginary version of me a bunch of other opinions you don't like, and then respond to those.

> You said if I continue I need to GTFO.

I said,

> I'm growing convinced that you're not engaging in good faith anywhere in this thread. And if this is going to be regular practice, please GTFO of the Haskell community.

As I wrote it, the (now italicized) "this" was definitely meant to refer to the just mentioned "not engaging in good faith", not to your behavior whatever it may be. This was less clear than I'd meant it to be, although I still think my intended interpretation is favored.

> That is very hard to believe consider the amount of dishonest rhetoric on display.

If we wish to litigate this, please point out a single instance of dishonest rhetoric from me. Be very specific about how it is dishonest. Bear in mind that there may have been genuine misunderstanding by either of us, and we were probably neither as clear as we thought ourselves to be.

I think text - at least in this format - is unlikely to work because it has manifestly not been working. I do read (and reread) what you write and I have not been able to figure out how I am misunderstanding anything. So, if this is ever going to be useful, something needs to change.

Since Yesod builds just fine, explain how it is "broken"?

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?

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.

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.

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.

It is "clear" to you, because that is what you want to believe. You have no basis for that belief, it is incorrect and silly, but it makes you feel good because you think it allows you to dismiss what I said.

> Every FP complete employee does this.

And plenty of non FP Complete employees do this. What's your point?

Why are all of your replies in this thread empty of content?

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 e.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wreq ... there are some, same as there are some for e.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/http-client . Not that I approve of this.

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!".

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.

>Your 'argument' is the absurd falsification that this practice was introduced to sell BSD3 software that appeared 3 years after the practice was introduced

I said nothing even remotely like that. Lying about what other people say is not constructive.

You said,

> The people involved have been the ones artificially creating the problem by refusing to follow established community standards (the package versioning policy)

and

> The tool does not fix real problems. It avoids a real problem, which the authors of the tool created in the first place. The problem does not exist if packages use upper version bounds. They refuse to, and then release a tool to move people to a curated subset of packages and versions instead, bypassing the problem they've imposed on everyone in the first place.

-- in fact they are no different from e.g. bos and amazonka and many many others; it's a view, we oppose it.

> then they release a tool to "solve" the problem they created, all while spewing FUD about cabal and the actual haskell developers and community.

Again it is demonstrable that they didn't create any problem. And they don't say anything against cabal that thousands of others didn't say. And on and on through your whole chain of nonsense.

Just give it up. They have a view we reject. The solution is to continue to argue against it .. keeping in mind that what we are asking for is torture to maintain even where you are dealing with only 10 external dependencies. It happens that I have just spent basically all morning dealing with dependency problems with four or five pipes-related libraries which keep rigorous upper bounds. Frankly it's unimaginable what yesod or amazonka would have to go through basically every morning with 10-20 times as many other-people's libraries to keep track of. There needs to be some automated way of doing it.

Your entire reply contains nothing of relevance to anything I have said. I do not see any way you can reasonably be just confused. It appears as though you are very deliberately dishonest. Please stop.

It was almost entirely quotations from you, I guess you can't remember them.

Quotations from me that do not support the lies you are repeating. Please, make an honest effort to contribute in a constructive manner.