Neil Mitchell wrote:
Hi
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!
I'd prefer not to leave anything implicit. If we're going to permit unsupported forks, we ought to say what they should look like. (They are, after all, happening now.)
Do we want to permit unsupported forks? I am not convinced they are a good idea.
what do we do if a package becomes unsupported? delete it? Or are you just concerned about it if they're *forks* that no one ever intended to support (rather than a maintainer of a package leaving after a while)? anyway, here's the conflict between hackage as a repository of anything Haskell that someone might use/start maintaining, or hackage as a collection of stuff that's generally supposed to work "out-of-the-box" to some extent(cabal-install). Does cabal-install make it easy to install something that's not in hackage.haskell.org (but is somewhere else on the web, where you know the URL)? -Isaac