<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Patrick Pelletier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:code@funwithsoftware.org" target="_blank">code@funwithsoftware.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
On 11/13/16 1:29 AM, Michael Snoyman wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">By the way,
regarding your comments about resourcet and FP Complete: I'm
honestly offended at this tone. I've clearly attempted quite
often and quite sincerely to get such cooperation to happen,
and have been rebuffed. Even if you're unaware of that, the
implied accusation assumes a lot which isn't true. I honestly
considered ignoring this thread entirely based on this tone,
I'm tired of dealing with it.<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
I'm very sorry! I did not mean to offend. I take Simon PJ
seriously in his call to have a productive, respectful discourse in
the Haskell community.<br>
<br>
To be clear, I did not object to resourcet linking to Stackage; what
I objected to is that the link to stackage is in place of having any
sort of description of resourcet, rather than in addition to it. To
me, that feels like it is making Hackage less useful (by denying it
the package description) rather than making the most of Hackage,
even though it isn't perfect. This makes me a little grouchy, and
perhaps this grouchiness seeped into my comments, for which I
apologize.<br>
<br>
Also, Hackage does have the ability to upload docs very
conveniently, via "cabal upload --documentation", so this can be
used to work around the fact that "Hackage documentation generation
is not reliable."<br>
<br>
We need to all work together in good faith to make the Haskell
ecosystem better. I am doing my best to do that, even if I am not
perfect. I have already volunteered privately to Gershom B to work
on the Hackage documentation generation code. I would like to make
Hackage docs more reliable. This may or may not involve integrating
with the S3 docs. That is a technical decision, and no slight
should be implied, whatever the outcome.<br>
<br>
Once again, I'm sorry if I have not succeeded in upholding Simon
PJ's standards for the Haskell community. I genuinely appreciate
the contributions you and FP Complete have made to the Haskell
ecosystem.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--Patrick<br>
<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thank you for that, offense _un_taken :). Just to let you (and others) know where I'm coming from on this:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I regularly get complaints of "why don't you do X," where X is a significant amount of extra work. Writing up dual descriptions in both README.md and cabal description fields is a prime example, and something I argued very hard for on Hackage. I'm disappointed with the way the description is displayed; I'd have much preferred that the README.md files I write would have been used. If you look on resourcet on Hackage, for example, there's a much more thorough description of the package at the bottom. I think this was a major mistake, but there's not much I can do about it.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">So my general request: instead of saying "I dislike X" and imply that the author (me, in this case) should take on some unspecified work to change what they're doing, try assuming some good faith. I put a lot of effort into getting display of my packages to be better on Hackage, and eventually gave up. Each comment about how I didn't do enough work is offensive, and pretty much puts another nail in the coffin of me wanting to be involved in Hackage ever again.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Michael</div></div>