agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB
niklas.broberg at gmail.com
Mon Jun 23 18:12:02 EDT 2008
+1 from me too, and I agree with the points raised by Neil.
On 6/24/08, Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
> (+1) Support, with two things:
> 1) I agree with Duncan. I think blank is a much better field name than
> "none". What if Mr None wants to maintain a package :-) Another reason
> is that its less likely to go wrong, and valid in any language.
> 2) " If a package is being maintained, any release not approved and
> supported by the maintainer should use a different package name.
> Then use the Maintainer field as above either to commit to
> supporting the fork yourself or to mark it as unsupported."
> I would change the final sentance to: "Then put your own name in the
> Maintainer field, to indicate your ongoing support for the package."
> People will figure out that if they want to fork and abandon then they
> can blank the maintainer field, but by default a fork should come with
> support. We don't want to enourage one-shot packages with no support!
> But that's a minor thing, and if people want to leave it as it is then
> that's fine.
> On 6/23/08, Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> > If a few more people could read this nice short policy and say "yes that
> > looks fine, I agree" then that would be very helpful.
> > If this is to be something that we put on hackage and expect people to
> > follow then it needs to be *seen* to be supported by people in the
> > community. If we need to act on the policy we don't want to be open to
> > the accusation that the policy was just imposed by Cabal bureaucrats
> > hell-bent on spoiling people's fun but that it actually reflects the
> > general view of the Haskell hacker community.
> > Just because it isn't controversial doesn't mean we don't need your
> > support! :-)
> > Of course if you do have any questions or suggestions then now is a good
> > time to mention them.
> > Duncan
> > On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 10:05 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> > > As a few people have noted, we need to agree a policy in this area.
> > > As I see it, the drivers are:
> > >
> > > * users need to know whether what they're downloading is supported,
> > > and if so by whom.
> > > * maintainers are entitled to control what goes out in their name.
> > > * allocating version numbers for a particular package name should be
> > > the prerogative of the maintainer.
> > >
> > > When something is agreed, I propose to put it on the hackageDB upload
> > > page and expect people to follow it. Here's my first attempt:
> > >
> > > If the Maintainer field names a person or group, the release as
> > > a whole (including packaging) is the named maintainer's approved
> > > release, which they are supporting (at least for some time after
> > > the release). Ideally a maintainer would make that clear by
> > > uploading the release themselves.
> > >
> > > A Maintainer value of "none" indicates that the package is
> > > not supported.
> > >
> > > If a package is being maintained, any release not approved and
> > > supported by the maintainer should use a different package name.
> > > Then use the Maintainer field as above either to commit to
> > > supporting the fork yourself or to mark it as unsupported.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
> > Libraries at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
More information about the Libraries