{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiebwv63hpfkzh56hyzuh43dc2yej2fnc3ewtjp4h3d2wrkyuq6dwa",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgio7yyvoqu2"
  },
  "path": "/t/fork-basement-as-baseplate/12415?page=4#post_78",
  "publishedAt": "2026-03-07T17:37:59.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "hasufell:\n\n> Core libraries is a third option.\n\nCore libraries seem like (2) to me. If basement was a core package, then CLC would pick a new maintainer for it regardless of Vincent’s wishes.\n\n(It’s true that we don’t need to pick between the two options _globally_ , we can make different choices for different packages. So right now we have (1) by default and (2) for core packages, but it would also be possible to have (2) for everything, or (2) by default but (1) if someone explicitly wants it.)\n\nhasufell:\n\n> That just means all those packages depending on basement, sadly, made a poor decision to rely on this ecosystem, because there was no sustainability guarantee around it.\n\nIf I want to write a package that makes an https call, do I have a realistic choice that doesn’t depend on a Vincent package? Even if someone looks at every single package in their dependency graph (and looks again every time the graph changes) and asks “does this seem sustainably maintained to me”, I don’t think it’s obviously a poor decision to go with the library that does the thing you want.\n\n(If you expose yourself to risk correlated with everyone else, then when things go wrong, they go wrong for everyone; and there’s a good chance that when the problem gets solved for everyone else it gets solved for you too.)\n\nhasufell:\n\n> I don’t think we need to take this exceptionally eccentric example of maintenance push us towards making sketchy hackage policies.\n\nI agree we shouldn’t make sketchy hackage policies, but I don’t consider anything I’m suggesting to be sketchy.",
  "title": "Fork `basement`? As `baseplate`?"
}