agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB
duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk
Mon Jun 23 06:14:51 EDT 2008
On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 10:05 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:
> As a few people have noted, we need to agree a policy in this area.
> As I see it, the drivers are:
> * users need to know whether what they're downloading is supported,
> and if so by whom.
> * maintainers are entitled to control what goes out in their name.
> * allocating version numbers for a particular package name should be
> the prerogative of the maintainer.
> When something is agreed, I propose to put it on the hackageDB upload
> page and expect people to follow it. Here's my first attempt:
> If the Maintainer field names a person or group, the release as
> a whole (including packaging) is the named maintainer's approved
> release, which they are supporting (at least for some time after
> the release). Ideally a maintainer would make that clear by
> uploading the release themselves.
> A Maintainer value of "none" indicates that the package is
> not supported.
> If a package is being maintained, any release not approved and
> supported by the maintainer should use a different package name.
> Then use the Maintainer field as above either to commit to
> supporting the fork yourself or to mark it as unsupported.
Looks good to me, except that I think I agree with Gwern that an empty
maintainer field is better than a distinguished value like "none".
We can always make the web page note that the package has no maintainer.
If on the other hand everyone thinks "none" is a good idea then we
should make hackage upload enforce that the maintainer field is not
More information about the Libraries