[Haskell-cafe] ANN: monad-bool 0.1

[Alvaro Gutierrez]

A brief stylistic note: to me, defunct has a connotation similar to that of
deprecated, just stronger; meaning, it implies something closer to
"NoLongerOnHackage" rather than wren's more general "NotOnHackage." In this
case, the distinction is moot, because the code did happen to exist on
Hackage, but I imagine there are cases one might want to warn against
without this condition being true.


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, David Thomas <davidleothomas at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20130126/b0beed79/attachment.htm>