Re: [core libraries] List of core libraries

It is your library as much as you want it to be. As such you can consider yourself as the maintainer and under http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Library_submissions - Changes that simply *widen the API by adding new functions* are a bit of a grey area. It's better to consult the community, because there may be useful feedback about (say) the order of arguments, or the name of the function, or whatnot. On the other hand few clients will actually break if you add a new function to the API. Use your judgment. Here you have a pretty obvious combinator, with one obvious argument ordering I'd assume, so you should be able to do as you see fit. The core libraries committee can help as much or as little as you want us to around filepath. -Edward On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Neil Mitchell wrote:

I did semi-hand the filepath library over to the Core libraries committee, it was just about 6 years before the committee formed so you probably don't have records of it, which is why libraries@ is listed as the author. I'm happy to take a more active role in maintaining it. In particular, I was intending to review/comment on https://github.com/haskell/filepath/pulls, and have the intention to add a bunch of patches (https://github.com/ndmitchell/shake/issues/174). Most of the patches are either obviously a good idea (fixing broken code) or improving the docs. The only one which could have any debate surrounding it is the introduction of a new operator -<.>. I don't want to debate that now, but it would be good to get clarification as to whether I should unilaterally add it, or should go through the libraries submission process, or ...

Thanks, Neil

...

All,

I’ve not touched hoc for quite a while. KU now has the resources to take ownership, if needed. It’s pretty stable, from what I understand, but could do with the an updated manual.

Andy Gill

On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Edward Kmett wrote:

Herbert:

Heretofore I'd been treating filepath as owned by Neil Mitchell, but that statement does sound like he's handed it off to the libraries process, which would make it a core-libraries issue if he doesn't want to deal with it.

I'm copying him on this thread to get his opinion.

I've also copied Andy Gill, to see if he has any opinions on the state of who owns update responsibility for hpc itself.

Andy, Neil: Thoughts?

Thomas: Thanks for forcing this issue to attention.

-Edward

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Herbert Valerio Riedel < hvriedel@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 2014-09-28 at 19:40:25 +0200, Thomas Miedema wrote:

[...]

...

Ok, final question: What about filepath and hpc? Their .cabal files

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Andrew Gill wrote: list

...

...

...

libraries@haskell.org as maintainer, which usually means the Core Libraries Committee. Should filepath be added to that list, and the maintainer for both filepath and hpc be set to the Core Libraries Committee? If not, who maintains filepath?

This is supposed to be an answer, but rather additional data-points:

As far as filepath is concerned:

http://community.haskell.org/~ndm/filepath/

states

| The library is now part of the core Haskell libraries, and since GHC | 6.6.1 has been shipped with all major compilers. While I am the | original author, changes are now made through the library submissions | process.

as for Hpc, if you look at its changelog over at

http://git.haskell.org/packages/hpc.git/shortlog

it's been effectively maintained by GHC HQ for the last couple of years...