Backup maintainer [Re: 'temporary' package]

[Carter Schonwald]

Perhaps.  Otoh, there are a number of admins / trustees for hackage who can
help when there's systematic issues.

On Friday, May 9, 2014, Alois Cochard <alois.cochard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh I see what you mean now Andreas, thanks for the detailed explanation!
>
> I like your idea of "ladder" with packages climbing it, nice way to
> enforce rule only when really necessary.
>
>
> On 9 May 2014 15:24, Andreas Abel <andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de> wrote:
>
> Well, not all packages uploaded to hackage are "libraries" in the sense
> that other packages rely on them.  There are tons of applications, and also
> things intended to be general purpose libraries that never get enough users.
>
> But once your package is used by enough others that rely on it, you need a
> backup maintainer.
>
> One could think of a "ladder" where packages acquire reputation/status,
> and from a certain point on one needs a backup maintainer.
>
> On 09.05.2014 15:00, Alois Cochard wrote:
>
> Does it mean you prefer not having a package in hackage than having it
> without a backup maintainer?
>
> Just think about all the packages that would not have reached hackage
> with a rule like that...
>
>
> On 7 May 2014 20:59, Andreas Abel <andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de
> <mailto:andreas.abel at ifi.lmu.de>> wrote:
>
>     On 07.05.2014 14:49, Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
>
>         Having backup maintainers is the answer.
>         http://ro-che.info/articles/__2014-02-08-my-haskell-will.__html
>         <http://ro-che.info/articles/2014-02-08-my-haskell-will.html>
>
>
>     Yes!  +1
>
>     hackage should require a backup maintainer for every library package
>     upload.
>
>
>             On May 7, 2014 8:36 AM, "Roman Cheplyaka" <roma at ro-che.info
>             <mailto:roma at ro-che.info>> wrote:
>
>                 No. In my opinion, there's no good reason why a package
>                 should remain
>                 broken for
>                 more than a day, given that there are people who has
>                 found, reported, and
>                 fixed
>                 the issue. All the actual work is done, now someone just
>                 has to push a
>                 button.
>
>                 * Oliver Charles <ollie at ocharles.org.uk
>                 <mailto:ollie at ocharles.org.uk>> [2014-05-07 13:29:40+0100]
>
>                     Isn't a 4 day turn around on a pull request a little
>                     hasty?
>
>                     - ocharles
>
>
>                     On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Roman Cheplyaka
>                     <roma at ro-che.info <mailto:roma at ro-che.info>>
>
>                 wrote:
>
>
>                         Hi Max,
>
>                         are you still maintaining the 'temporary' package?
>                         There's a breakage waiting to be fixed (with a
>                         patch):
>                         https://github.com/__
> batterseapower/temporary/pull/__12
>                         <https://github.com/batterseapower/temporary/pull/
> 12>
>
>                         If I don't hear from you in two days, I'll
>                         request maintainership
>
>                 and/or
>
>                         fork the package.
>
>
>
> --
> Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
>
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden
>
> andreas.abel at gu.se
>  <http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/>
>
> --
> *Alois Cochard*
> http://aloiscochard.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/aloiscochard
> http://github.com/aloiscochard
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140509/c92a1d9b/attachment.html>