hackage is success because: a) many (most) people do use it (by uploading packages) b) it is a comprehensive list of availible packages if not the most comprehensive one Duncan, can you write about your concerns briefly why some maintainers may dislike this idea ? Hackage is missing one feature: It is very static. I mean if you have a patch or a question or a comment you have to lookup the darcs repository, write the patch then contact the author and wait.. If the author replies everything is fine. If he doesn't you don't know what to do. And if he does your commitment still doesn't show up on hackage. Using a wiki page for each project enables anybody to add comments. I'm thinking about this kind of comments: "Interlude doesn't work for me. It looks like the interlude.h file passes a tuple to the reportError function which doesn't expect a tuple. You can fix it by removing the "," in the .h file. Try this patch: http://github.com/MarcWeber/haskell-nix-overlay/blob/master/patches/interlud... " Of course I mailed the author. Looking at the package again I noticed that it was uploaded by someone else: GwernBranwen. gwern on #haskell told me that the author is responsive so I'll just wait some days, but others will try and fail as well. If the other person is new to haskell he may not find the fix fast. He just wants to know which of the heads is causing trouble.. Another use case would be users adding "If you're interested in this topic also have a look at XXX" Yet another use case is someone figuring out that function X was removed in version Y. He could than add a note x vanished since v.10 and everybody who wants to update cabal dependency constraints doesn't have to download the darcs repo to figure out that he should use package <= v.10 . Of course contents of wiki pages may be totally wrong because the contents were written by people knowing the package less than the maintainers and authors. But everyone knows this and will take care. This wiki can server as fail over if the maintainer is on holiday. This wiki page will prevent people blogging about packages and benchmark results anywhere on the internet. So it's much more likely that this information is read and maintained. If you use google to look for bug fixes or such you may have success. But very often you end up reading pages dated 3 years ago which are outdated. This wiki page would be I simple effective way letting users annotate packages. Costs: Make hackage add one link. It would look like this: http://mawercer.de/~marc/hackage-link-example.jpg This link should point to the existing haskell wiki on haskell.org: http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/project-name-without-version Even if the maintainer is availible 24/h a day he won't upload a new minor version to hackage for each change. But maybe he'll paste a small note that the darcs repo is more up to date fixing issue x/y. You don't want to upload a new version because you added some documentation. Why don't you want to do that ? It's because hackage will keep every version which was uploaded once by design. Having 50 versions of one package just causes much more work for tools such as cabal install or hack-nix. Figuring out a solution to install all packages is hard enough. Maintainers can create the wiki page and subscribe to change notifications. So I don't think it'll be that much work for them to keep an eye on those wiki pages. How do you think about it? It's about centralizing information and saving your and my time. Many packages aready do have a wiki page. So why not make it easier for all to add one? Thoughts ? Currently my goal is updating some common packages so that they use extensible exceptions and base4. But when working on some patches I'd like to tell people that I'm doing so. I can't in an easy way. That's why I'm starting this thread. Marc Weber