agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB
ndmitchell at gmail.com
Mon Jun 23 20:44:45 EDT 2008
> > 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!
> I'd prefer not to leave anything implicit. If we're going to permit
> unsupported forks, we ought to say what they should look like. (They are,
> after all, happening now.)
Do we want to permit unsupported forks? I am not convinced they are a good idea.
As for the maintainer field, thinking about it further, it seems to
make sense that no maintainer field is equal to a maintainer field of
"" - hence using a blank string for unsupported seems like a bad idea.
Therefore an explicit "unsupported" value probably makes more sense.
More information about the Libraries