{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreicpj5mnf2evos2bsn2hqoxe72btdepuafmgdip3cq23aemrpd77xi",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mopkbgqah5g2"
  },
  "path": "/t/rfc-http-types-breakage-additions-rework/14286?page=2#post_35",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-20T08:09:25.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "mikeplus64:\n\n> The sentiment of “they knew what they were getting in to, I say, let them crash” is not really accurate: it’s going to cumulatively create a lot of work for people who _weren’t_ the original villains who deigned to not put `<X` on their `http-types` dep, but who just want to not have a non-broken package.\n\nIf this is so then it’s a strong argument for requiring tight upper bounds on Hackage packages.",
  "title": "[RFC] \"http-types\" breakage / additions / rework"
}