Re: agreeing a policy for maintainers and hackageDB

+1 also Niklas Broberg wrote:

+1 from me too, and I agree with the points raised by Neil.

Cheers,

/Niklas

On 6/24/08, Neil Mitchell wrote:

...

Hi

(+1) Support, with two things:

1) I agree with Duncan. I think blank is a much better field name than "none". What if Mr None wants to maintain a package :-) Another reason is that its less likely to go wrong, and valid in any language.

2) " If a package is being maintained, any release not approved and

supported by the maintainer should use a different package name. Then use the Maintainer field as above either to commit to supporting the fork yourself or to mark it as unsupported."

I would change the final sentance to: "Then put your own name in the Maintainer field, to indicate your ongoing support for the package." People will figure out that if they want to fork and abandon then they can blank the maintainer field, but by default a fork should come with support. We don't want to enourage one-shot packages with no support!

But that's a minor thing, and if people want to leave it as it is then that's fine.

Thanks

Neil

On 6/23/08, Duncan Coutts wrote:

...

If a few more people could read this nice short policy and say "yes that looks fine, I agree" then that would be very helpful.

If this is to be something that we put on hackage and expect people to follow then it needs to be *seen* to be supported by people in the community. If we need to act on the policy we don't want to be open to the accusation that the policy was just imposed by Cabal bureaucrats hell-bent on spoiling people's fun but that it actually reflects the general view of the Haskell hacker community.

Just because it isn't controversial doesn't mean we don't need your support! :-)

Of course if you do have any questions or suggestions then now is a good time to mention them.

Duncan

On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 10:05 +0100, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

As a few people have noted, we need to agree a policy in this area. As I see it, the drivers are:

* users need to know whether what they're downloading is supported, and if so by whom. * maintainers are entitled to control what goes out in their name. * allocating version numbers for a particular package name should be the prerogative of the maintainer.

When something is agreed, I propose to put it on the hackageDB upload page and expect people to follow it. Here's my first attempt:

If the Maintainer field names a person or group, the release as a whole (including packaging) is the named maintainer's approved release, which they are supporting (at least for some time after the release). Ideally a maintainer would make that clear by uploading the release themselves.

A Maintainer value of "none" indicates that the package is not supported.

If a package is being maintained, any release not approved and supported by the maintainer should use a different package name. Then use the Maintainer field as above either to commit to supporting the fork yourself or to mark it as unsupported.

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries