'temporary' package

[amindfv at gmail.com]

It might be good to also mention a user's options for using their own fork of a package while waiting for an update on hackage. Part of peoples' frustration seems to be coming from a feeling that they're blocked on waiting for the package to be updated.

Tom


El May 10, 2014, a las 15:35, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald at gmail.com> escribió:

> Let's update that policy with your and Edwards remarks?
> 
> On Saturday, May 10, 2014, Erik Hesselink <hesselink at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Gershom Bazerman <gershomb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I understand that Max did a bunch of very important work, then became
>> > occupied with other things in the world. And in the long term, that needs to
>> > be sorted out. But in the short term, a four-day-notice policy is silly. And
>> > furthermore, even though there's nothing _wrong_ with forking promiscuously,
>> > it tends to create a mess, to no good end.
>> 
>> Just a small note since this was mentioned a couple of times: as
>> hackage admins we don't have a 'four-day-notice policy'. The package
>> takeover procedure [0] just says 'a while', and we've taken this to
>> mean at least 2-3 weeks to account for vacations, other absences,
>> general busyness etc.
>> 
>> Erik
>> 
>> [0] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Taking_over_a_package
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20140510/df420c25/attachment.html>