
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
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
Yes! +1
hackage should require a backup maintainer for every library package upload.
On May 7, 2014 8:36 AM, "Roman Cheplyaka"
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
[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
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
If I don't hear from you in two days, I'll request maintainership
and/or
fork the package.
Roman
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Andreas Abel <>< Du bist der geliebte Mensch.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden
andreas.abel@gu.se http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
-- *Alois Cochard* http://aloiscochard.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/aloiscochard http://github.com/aloiscochard