{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreif5hc7hub2mfttqpmrmbxwilcqwt65livl5qyfzpfviwol2uwug5a",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mp25tknyayg2"
  },
  "path": "/t/rfc-http-types-breakage-additions-rework/14286?page=3#post_53",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-24T14:43:21.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "> If this is so then it’s a strong argument for requiring tight upper bounds on Hackage packages.\n\nIt doesn’t matter. If I need to upgrade a dependency and cabal complains I add an `allow-newer`in `cabal.project` and hope it compiles, if it doesn’t I fork the library and fix it (pointing cabal.project to our fork) and move on to the next 30 broken packages. “preemptive” upper bounds don’t really help me.",
  "title": "[RFC] \"http-types\" breakage / additions / rework"
}