agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB

[Gwern Branwen]

On 2008.07.01 14:41:11 -0400, Isaac Dupree <isaacdupree at charter.net> scribbled 0.8K characters:
> Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Gwern Branwen wrote:
>>
>>>> non-maintainers shouldn't upload new versions of maintained packages
>>>> without written ;) maintainer permission. well, as far as maintainer
>>>> answers their letters
>>> And how would we handle the case where the package is fully
>>> maintained, but the maintainer hates Cabal & Hackage and would never
>>> give permission? Does the maintainer have eternal veto power over
>>> uploads?
>>>
>>
>> To the extent it's legal to do so? Upload a package clearly marked as
>> unofficial, with the maintainer field blank.
>
> If someone wants to put a version on hackage and act as maintainer for
> it (presumably mostly pulling updates from the "upstream"), should we
> let them?  Although, this situation sounds too hypothetical for me to
> have any idea how to answer my own question.

It's not hypothetical at all. Meachem's Drift stuff is on Hackage, but he certainly hasn't accepted any cabalization patches for it.

And I asked in part because I have an experimental cabalization of Darcs which I maintain, and I was thinking of uploading it to Hackage since Darcs 2.0.2 got released - which would be exactly this situation (Roundy has made it clear he opposes cabalization of Darcs, even removing stuff that would make it easier).

--
gwern
rs9512c Echelon disruption sweep Montenegro TEXTA NSES FBI Phon-e AC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20080701/cde11e28/attachment.bin