Problematic versioning policy
My Haskell package checklist recommends using Semantic Versioning (SemVer) instead of the Package Versioning Policy (PVP). Many people disagree with that recommendation. I stand by it. In fact, I think the PVP is a bad policy and the Haskell community should abandon it in favor of SemVer.
The main difference between these two versioning schemes is that the PVP has an extra major version number for encoding breaking changes. It recommends that versions follow a major.major.minor format. SemVer differs by requiring versions to follow the major.minor.patch format.
I am aware of a few reasons why people prefer the PVP to SemVer.
Because the PVP allows for more version components, it is more expressive. In particular, it can differentiate between big and small breaking changes. Re-writing a package from the ground up is an example of a big breaking change. A small breaking change might be renaming a function.
SemVer treats all breaking changes the same, which I think is the right approach. A small change from the package author’s point of view might be a big change from the package user’s point of view. Similarly, a ground-up rewrite might not introduce any breaking changes at all.
The first major version number can be used for something else because the PVP has two major version numbers. For example, it might be used for marketing. Or, a single SDL package could have both a 1.x and a 2.x series, targeting different versions of the underlying SDL library.
SemVer forces these into the package name, which frees you from matching your major version number to the library you’re wrapping. (What if you wanted to make a big breaking change to the 1.x series?) You might end up with an sdl1 package and an sdl2 package. If you wanted to share code between them, you might need an sdl-base package too.
Because the PVP has two major version numbers, package authors can make backwards-incompatible changes to old versions. Imagine that the current version of a package is 2.0 but some people are still using version 1.0. They discover a bug; the fix requires a breaking change. The PVP allows that bug fix to be released as version 1.1.
SemVer makes users upgrade to the latest version for backwards-incompatible bug fixes. Or it encourages package authors to find backwards-compatible bug fixes. Either way, this is not a scenario that comes up often.
The PVP has no special case for major version 0. Going from version 0.x to 1.x does not change any of the rules. This means that major version 0 communicates neither a lack of stability nor maturity.
By comparison, SemVer does not restrict major version 0 at all. Packages with major version 0 are in their initial phase of development. Users of those packages can make a case that the package should commit to stability and get on major version 1.
I have many reasons for preferring SemVer to the PVP.
The PVP allows any number of version components. The spec merely recommends that each version have at least 3 components. However all of these are valid PVP versions: 1, 1.2, 1.2.3, 126.96.36.199, and so on. There are a couple interesting consequences of this.
Different versions of the same package do not have to have the same number of version components. For example, these are some of the lens package’s versions: 4.15.1, 4.14, 188.8.131.52. This isn’t a problem by itself, but it is a problem when specifying version bounds. Version 4.14 of lens would not be matched by a constraint of
>= 4.14.0. That’s because version 4.14 is less than 4.14.0 according to Data.Version.
Another less obvious problem with this variable number of version components is that going from version 1 to version 1.0 is both allowed and a breaking change. This case is so surprising and treacherous that Hackage now prevents authors from uploading packages that only add “.0”s to the end of version numbers.
The PVP is unclear when to change which major version number. If you need to release a breaking change, do you go from 1.0 to 1.1 or 2.0? Consider the 4.8 release of the base package, which changed the superclass hierarchy of the
Monadclass. That seems like a big change; why was it communicated by going from 4.7 to 4.8 instead of from 4.7 to 5.0? Which types of changes motivate version 5.0 of the base package to be released?
The PVP encourages packages to stay on major version 0. This follows from the previous point. At which point do you go from 0.x to 1.0? Making that change implies that there are big breaking changes in the release. Unlike SemVer, major version 0 doesn’t imply instability. That leads to widely-used, rock-solid packages on major version 0. Look at the bytestring package, which has been around for 10 years. Why is it still on major version 0?
The PVP considers deprecation a breaking change. In other words, it considers deprecation the same as removal. Compare this to SemVer, which allows deprecations in a minor release.
Dependency lower bounds are often incorrect with the PVP. The correct minimum bound for a PVP package is
>= A.B.C. Many packages only specify
>= A.B, which implies (but isn’t the same as)
>= A.B.0. For example, the directory package depends on filepath
>= 1.3 && < 1.5. Since new functionality can be introduced by the
Cversion component, it’s possible that version
1.3.1would work but
Dependency upper bounds are often incorrect with the PVP. The correct upper bound for a PVP package is
< A.B. Many packages only specify
< A. For example, the containers package depends on base
>= 4.3 && < 5. This is incorrect because version 4.9 of the base package could introduce breaking changes.
In addition to the previous two points, bounds are often incorrect with the PVP. For example, consider the aeson package. Versions 0.11.2.1 and 184.108.40.206 are broadly compatible. You might write
>= 0.11.2 && < 1.1as a reasonable-looking version constraint that isn’t a problem according to the previous two points. However, it’s entirely possible that version 0.12 of aeson will be released and it will be neither backwards compatible with 0.11 nor forwards compatible with 1.0. So the accurate version bounds for this scenario are
(>= 0.11.2 && < 0.12) || (>= 1.0.2 && < 1.1). That is tedious at best to write out, so it will often be lazily constrained as
>= 0.11 && < 1.1.
The PVP provides no guidance about patch releases. For example, releasing a patch to version 1.2.3 could be any of: 220.127.116.11, 1.2.4, 1.3.0, or 2.0.0. All are allowed according to the PVP. This makes it difficult to tell if a major-looking release actually has anything major in it.
The PVP allows non-contiguous version ranges. The spec does not require version components to go up by 1. It only requires that they increase. So it’s perfectly fine to go from version 1.2.3 to 4.0.0. This is not necessarily a problem, but it is potentially confusing.
The PVP does not require smaller components to reset. For example, going from version 1.2.3 to 2.2.3 is fine. Like the previous point, this is merely confusing.
The PVP considers additions to be breaking if you use a “general” name space. For example, if you want to add a module called Data.Set.Mine, it must be accompanied by a new major version number.
I have heard reasons for preferring the PVP that I consider invalid.
The PVP is older, but why does it matter? The PVP was introduced in November 2006, but it looked like SemVer at that time. Around October 2007 it changed into its current form. SemVer was introduced in December 2009. We shouldn’t use inferior things simply because they’ve been around longer.
Tooling does no depend on the PVP. If you use Cabal and Hackage, everything works with version bounds and a solver. If you use Stack and Stackage, everything works with snapshots.
For the reasons given above, I dislike the PVP. In researching this post, I kept finding things to dislike about the spec. I think the Haskell community should move away from it, preferably toward SemVer.