agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB
isaacdupree at charter.net
Mon Jun 23 18:29:37 EDT 2008
Niklas Broberg wrote:
> +1 from me too, and I agree with the points raised by Neil.
> On 6/24/08, Neil Mitchell <ndmitchell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> (+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.
>> 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
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
More information about the Libraries