<p>Would it make sense to have a known-to-be-stable-though soft upper bound added proactively, and a known-to-break-above hard bound added reactively, so people can loosen gracefully as appropriate?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 15, 2012 1:45 PM, "Johan Tibell" <<a href="mailto:johan.tibell@gmail.com">johan.tibell@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Brandon Allbery <<a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com">allbery.b@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> So we are certain that the rounds of failures that led to their being<br>
> *added* will never happen again?<br>
<br>
It would be useful to have some examples of these. I'm not sure we had<br>
any when we wrote the policy (but Duncan would know more), but rather<br>
reasoned our way to the current policy by saying that things can<br>
theoretically break if we don't have upper bounds, therefore we need<br>
them.<br>
<br>
-- Johan<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote></div>