agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB

[Niklas Broberg]

+1 from me too, and I agree with the points raised by Neil.

Cheers,

/Niklas

On 6/24/08, Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
>  (+1) Support, with two things:
>
>  1) I agree with Duncan. I think blank is a much better field name than
>  "none". What if Mr None wants to maintain a package :-) Another reason
>  is that its less likely to go wrong, and valid in any language.
>
>  2) "   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."
>
>
> I would change the final sentance to: "Then put your own name in the
>  Maintainer field, to indicate your ongoing support for the package."
>  People will figure out that if they want to fork and abandon then they
>  can blank the maintainer field, but by default a fork should come with
>  support. We don't want to enourage one-shot packages with no support!
>
>  But that's a minor thing, and if people want to leave it as it is then
>  that's fine.
>
>  Thanks
>
>
>  Neil
>
>
>
>
>  On 6/23/08, Duncan Coutts <duncan.coutts at worc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>  > If a few more people could read this nice short policy and say "yes that
>  >  looks fine, I agree" then that would be very helpful.
>  >
>  >  If this is to be something that we put on hackage and expect people to
>  >  follow then it needs to be *seen* to be supported by people in the
>  >  community. If we need to act on the policy we don't want to be open to
>  >  the accusation that the policy was just imposed by Cabal bureaucrats
>  >  hell-bent on spoiling people's fun but that it actually reflects the
>  >  general view of the Haskell hacker community.
>  >
>  >  Just because it isn't controversial doesn't mean we don't need your
>  >  support! :-)
>  >
>  >  Of course if you do have any questions or suggestions then now is a good
>  >  time to mention them.
>  >
>  >
>  >  Duncan
>  >
>  >
>  >  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.
>  >
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  Libraries mailing list
>  >  Libraries at haskell.org
>  >  http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  Libraries mailing list
>  Libraries at haskell.org
>  http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>