[Haskell-cafe] ANN: monad-bool 0.1

[David Thomas]

I think it needs to be both places.  I know when I'm searching, I often
just go to google with "site:hackage.haskell.org inurl:latest"  I would be
likely to miss it if it were just in the cabal file (although in the
modules it could be as simple as a note saying "this is defunct - view the
main page for an explanation of why).  Alternatively, if there is much
reasoning specific to a particular module it could certainly go there,
while the cabal gets the overview...


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM, wren ng thornton <wren at freegeek.org> wrote:

> On 1/24/13 1:40 AM, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
>
>> David Thomas <davidleothomas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  We could even set up NotOnHackage: a "package" repository just like
>>>> Hackage, except the packages are just documentation on why there is
>>>> no such package. Implementation-wise it's just a wiki; but the idea
>>>> is about how to organize the wiki. NotOnHackage should be organized
>>>> and searchable similar to Hackage itself, so that people can look
>>>> there when nothing looks promising on Hackage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Couldn't this be actually on hackage, so one search turns up what you
>>> want?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.  There is no reason to put up a second Hackage for that one.
>> Without changing anything in the current system, packages can just
>> update their categories, so that they will be displayed below "Defunct"
>> or something like that.  This is fine, as only the categories of the
>> latest version are significant.
>>
>> If you think this is a good idea, I will start with some of my
>> packages. =)
>>
>
> We've had package deprecation for a while, so the big trick IMO is the
> documentation. Good descriptions of why the package is defunct and
> suggestions on how people can do things better.
>
> If we're going to do it on Hackage itself, I think the big question is one
> of style: should the documentation be all in the cabal file (i.e., on the
> package description page, with no modules in the package); or should we put
> the documentation into modules?
>
>
> --
> Live well,
> ~wren
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20130125/61987218/attachment-0001.htm>