> The people involved have been the ones artificially creating the problem by refusing to follow established community standards (the package versioning policy)
and
> The tool does not fix real problems. It avoids a real problem, which the authors of the tool created in the first place. The problem does not exist if packages use upper version bounds. They refuse to, and then release a tool to move people to a curated subset of packages and versions instead, bypassing the problem they've imposed on everyone in the first place.
-- in fact they are no different from e.g. bos and amazonka and many many others; it's a view, we oppose it.
> then they release a tool to "solve" the problem they created, all while spewing FUD about cabal and the actual haskell developers and community.
Again it is demonstrable that they didn't create any problem. And they don't say anything against cabal that thousands of others didn't say. And on and on through your whole chain of nonsense.
Just give it up. They have a view we reject. The solution is to continue to argue against it .. keeping in mind that what we are asking for is torture to maintain even where you are dealing with only 10 external dependencies. It happens that I have just spent basically all morning dealing with dependency problems with four or five pipes-related libraries which keep rigorous upper bounds. Frankly it's unimaginable what yesod or amazonka would have to go through basically every morning with 10-20 times as many other-people's libraries to keep track of. There needs to be some automated way of doing it.