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

Don't fallback silently to LTS #228

Closed
cocreature opened this issue Jun 9, 2015 · 4 comments
Closed

Don't fallback silently to LTS #228

cocreature opened this issue Jun 9, 2015 · 4 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@cocreature
Copy link
Contributor

I find it extremely unintuitive that it falls back to lts with no warning.

I tried it on a project where I had a too new lens dependency so it chose lts and started downloading ghc-7.8 while I need a nightly snapshot and 7.10.

There should be a big warning pointing out that no snapshot matched and also what caused problems and then the snapshot should be chosen by the user instead of defaulting to lts.

@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

snoyberg commented Jun 9, 2015

Possibly related: #215 asks the question about whether we should automatically install GHC if it's missing. If that was turned off, then the behavior in the case you just described would be to generate a stack.yaml that points at LTS and then ask you to run stack setup, which seems like it would be an improvement.

Agreed on the warning and diagnostics, that seems like a clear advantage. Perhaps we should also exit stack after writing a stack.yaml that we know doesn't work so that the user can get a chance to fix things.

@snoyberg snoyberg added this to the First stable release (0.1.0.0?) milestone Jun 9, 2015
@andrewthad
Copy link

Agreed, the fallbacks are pretty counter-intuitive. At the least, some kind of prompt would be nice for users. Because 99% of the time, I don't want stack to start building against a different version of LTS than the one I specified.

@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

I've opened #253 to try and discuss this and other related topics together

@snoyberg snoyberg self-assigned this Jun 15, 2015
@snoyberg
Copy link
Contributor

This is resolved now on master. Check out #253 (comment) for more details.

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