Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mtl-2.3 needs a migration guide for removal of re-exports #119

Open
Bodigrim opened this issue May 8, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

mtl-2.3 needs a migration guide for removal of re-exports #119

Bodigrim opened this issue May 8, 2022 · 3 comments

Comments

@Bodigrim
Copy link

Bodigrim commented May 8, 2022

#74 (comment) says

@Bodigrim we are planning on this months from now, with as much tooling guidance, announcing, and help as possible.

#103 (comment) says

@emilypi is going to revert this revert later, and write a migration guide. Tonight or tomorrow I'm going to create the writeup with our reasoning.

And yet neither published changelog nor announcements acknowledge the removal of re-exports from Control.Monad / Data.Monoid; and tooling / migration guide / public reasoning failed to materialise. Could this please be amended?

With all due respect to fantastic efforts of @kozross to revitalise the development of mtl, which I hugely appreciate, silently breaking hundreds of downstream packages is no way to maintain core libraries.

@kozross
Copy link
Collaborator

kozross commented May 8, 2022

The changelog missing the relevant entry was indeed my bad, and I did fix it in #114. This does need to be updated on Hackage admittedly, but I believe that's a metadata change, so shouldn't require another release.

@andreasabel
Copy link
Member

but I believe that's a metadata change, so shouldn't require another release.

If you mean "metadata" in the sense of hackage, I am afraid the CHANGELOG isn't part of the metadata that can be modified. Only some contents of the .cabal file can be modified.

@kozross Could you please comment on whether the removal of ExceptT (also not mentioned in the CHANGELOG) was intentional?

If not, maybe you would anyway need a re-release.

@kozross
Copy link
Collaborator

kozross commented May 8, 2022

@andreasabel It was not - I've commented on the original issue, and plan to issue a fix today.

mbg added a commit to mbg/moss that referenced this issue May 20, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants