[Haskell-cafe] Unmaintained packages and hackage upload rights

Fri Jan 31 19:04:21 UTC 2014

automation ... isn't flexible. the moment theres an automatic path, a lot
of non social engineering approaches to break any hackage trust model

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Clark Gaebel <cgaebel at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> There could be an email made to the relevant mailing lists during a
> takeover attempt. That way we get human visibility, human "veto power" if
> the email goes to libraries@, and automation when there are no objections.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Carter Schonwald <
> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Agreed.  It should not be automatic.  There should be lots of human
>> visible interaction publicly going on.
>>
>>
>> On Friday, January 31, 2014, Daniil Frumin <difrumin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a problem with the 4th step. What if maintainer is unreachable,
>>> but the updated version of the package is broken/breaking ever
>>> dependency? What if there are several replacements awaiting?
>>>
>>> I personally think that problem we are facing is not technical, but a
>>> social one. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer trustees to the
>>> automatic mechanism.
>>>
>>> I understand that Roman may have been really irritated by the whole
>>> process - but on the other hand, do we really need/want the process of
>>> overtaking packages to be easy? I strongly align with Gershom's
>>> position. We should make the process more transparent and visible. In
>>> order to put my money where my mouth is,  I created a wiki page that
>>> (hopefully) describes the process of taking over a package:
>>> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Taking_over_a_package
>>> You are strongly encouraged to edit that page and give more details
>>> (especially given my far from perfect English)
>>>
>>> Maybe it is a good idea to have links to that wiki article on every
>>> package page on Hackage?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Carter Schonwald
>>> <carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Problem: no one is really actively working on hackage-server.  Are you
>>> > volunteering? :-)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Friday, January 31, 2014, Clark Gaebel <cgaebel at uwaterloo.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> 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-respo
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20140131/2cc4325c/attachment.html>