New version of vector + discussion

Edward Kmett ekmett at
Thu Jun 26 17:46:46 UTC 2014

By all means. We're all new to this process. =)

I just wanted to throw up a big red flag and make sure we actually did this
right, especially as the last quickee backport blew up.

The main thing we're trying to do with vector is move to actually following
the libraries@ process like other packages. Folks propose things,
preferably with patches. The maintainer maintains it and ultimately decides
on inclusion, like with everything else in the platform, etc.

Heretofore it has been more or less controlled chaos. That started when the
package slid into community hands when Roman washed his hands of it, but it
has led to the case where master and the stuff in wide use have been
getting farther and farther out of sync.


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Gregory Collins <greg at>

> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Edward Kmett <ekmett at> wrote:
>> Given the way the last ad hoc release of vector went out and the problems
>> that ensued I'd really appreciate it if he was the one to push any vector
>> releases for now.
>> He's done a ton of work cleaning it up, and we've already gone behind his
>> back once.
> Yes I should have not implied with my email that "anybody in particular"
> should do the release, as that's not really what I meant -- instead that
> whoever has been doing them lately or who had been granted the release bit
> should do it. If Dan is going to coordinate or perform releases then we
> should make a note of this in the readme so that people know in the future.
> In relation to the patch, this particular change has turned out to be more
> controversial than I expected so if we follow Johan's proposal by splitting
> off a .Internal module then there is work to do still before the release
> can be made anyways.
> G
> --
> Gregory Collins <greg at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list