Thomas Honeyman

In #577 we agreed to drop pre-0.13 packages (though I’m surprised at so many versions affected!) Personally I don’t think we should consider inclusion in a package set as evidence...

I don’t think we should keep any package versions for which we couldn’t determine _any_ viable compiler version. That means that the version either doesn’t solve, or that the way...

That sounds like a good idea. I know there were 56 package versions that existed in package sets but had no workable compiler version. We reviewed a bunch of these...

> Are you all proposing literally updating the manifests to get things to solve so that we can admit a larger set of things to the registry? I'm not proposing...

I haven’t gotten around to discovering all packages that would have to be reimported (as well as their dependents), but I was thinking on it and — we already plan...

It feels odd to arbitrarily limit jobs such that if someone else is uploading a package then I cannot publish mine. Isn’t it preferable to allow concurrent package uploads? Certainly...

Here's another example of this happening: https://github.com/purescript/registry/issues/344 was terminated because https://github.com/purescript/registry/issues/345 modified the metadata during its run.

cc: @f-f on this, as I don't personally have an opinion. As far as I know the intention is to accept lower-cased Unicode characters in UTF-8, minus some special characters,...

There are some explicit test cases here: https://github.com/purescript/registry-dev/blob/4cd57a13430c766a94c6642da9b557a431b81724/lib/test/Registry/PackageName.purs#L66-L84

> I'm still uneasy with that approach because client libraries are very likely to behave incorrectly if, say, the registry tells them that some package has two separate versions 1.0.0+0...