agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB

Neil Mitchell ndmitchell at
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 mailing list