[Haskell-cafe] Unmaintained packages and hackage upload rights

[Clark Gaebel]

We could actually partially automate this:

1) Package maintainership switch is submitted online, with a new
replacement package, and perhaps a message.
2) An email is sent to the maintainer with a link to either:
       - delete the replacement package
       - allow one-time upload
       - permanently add the uploader as a maintainer
       - permanently switch maintaners to the uploader
3) While the package is in this limbo state waiting for a response from the
maintainer, put a link to the package at the bottom of the hackage page in
a new "suggested replacements" section. In this section, each candidate
replacement package is listed, along with its message and how long it's
been waiting.
4) After a bikeshed-long amount of time with no response from the
maintainer (I'll suggest 1 month), the package is automatically updated to
the suggested version and the package uploader is added as a maintainer.


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Daniil Frumin <difrumin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the proposed approach is only reasonable. However, I would
> like to stress that in any case it would be better to make sure that
> we give the maintainer enough time to respond, e.g.: if the maintainer
> is unreachable for a couple of weeks at least
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <roma at ro-che.info>
> wrote:
> >> * Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+hs at mega-nerd.com> [2014-01-31 09:22:36+1100]
> >>> I really can understand why you did this; I am frustrated by some of
> >>> the same issues. However, I think if any significant number of people
> >>> did this, the results could easily be disasterous.
> >>
> >> Agreed. Maybe we need those disasterous results to realize that the
> >> current process is bad and come up with a better one. Or maybe it's just
> >> me, and everyone else is happy (enough) with the process, so nothing
> >> will happen.
> >
> > That's a rather fatalist attitude, and also one that is not warranted
> > given the replies in this thread. Let me try to be more constructive
> > instead:
> >
> > I propose to make the trustees group able to upload any package, with
> > the understanding that they only do so to make packages where the
> > maintainer is unreachable compile on more compilers or with more
> > versions of dependencies. The newly uploaded version should have a
> > public repository of the forked source available and listed in the
> > cabal file. The process would then be:
> >
> > * User fixes a package, emails the maintainer.
> > * No response: User emails trustees.
> > * Trustees check the above conditions, and upload the new version.
> >
> > This is more lightweight that the process to take over maintainership,
> > and it can be, because we're not trusting a random user with a random
> > package. Instead, we're only trusting a fixed set of maintainers and a
> > small, publicly visible change. Because of this, the waiting times for
> > non-responsiveness can probably also be shorter than in the maintainer
> > take-over process.
> >
> > Would this alleviate the frustration, while at the same time
> > maintaining enough security and sense of package ownership?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
> > _______________________________________________
> > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> > Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> -- Daniil
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>



-- 
Clark.

Key ID     : 0x78099922
Fingerprint: B292 493C 51AE F3AB D016  DD04 E5E3 C36F 5534 F907
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20140131/5720a965/attachment.html>