agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB

[Josef Svenningsson]

+1 Looks good to me.

Josef

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk> 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
>