Haskell Platform package additions: decision time!

Simon Marlow marlowsd at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 06:39:43 EDT 2009

On 15/09/2009 14:44, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:34 +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
>>> So far we have had a few people send in comments (thanks
>>> particularly to
>>> Ian and Simon) but a few more would not go amiss, even if it's just
>>> "yes".
>> Basically, yes.
>>> Concern 1: "The policy document itself is too long and too detailed."
>> I must admit, I too did not read it fully, because it was
>> intimidatingly long. In fact, it made me think "phew, thank goodness
>> I didn't want to propose any of my packages for the platform!"
>>> Quick poll: should we split the rationale into a separate page or keep
>>> it on the same page? Yes or no.
>> Definitely split off the rationale,
> Seems like this is the majority opinion. If it is actually putting
> people off then that's certainly a good reason to split. The procedure
> is not very complicated, the policy is just fairly detailed and, I hope,
> fairly clear. We were trying to anticipate questions and corner cases.

I'd like to chime in in support of the current way it's done.  Having it 
on the same page is better than separate pages because it's easier to 
navigate.  Separate panes or similar would be even better, but that's 
essentially impossible without deep Trac magic, if at all.

If people are worried by the length of the page, then perhaps it could 
be made clearer at the top of the page that only the first X% of the 
page is actual policy, the rest is rationale.  With a diagram, even :)


More information about the Libraries mailing list