Re: Proposal: splitting the network package
I think the best action is to contact the maintainers. I imagine that most package naming disputes can be resolved this way. Forcefully renaming packages crosses a point of no return, so we should be a little bit more hesitant to invoke that option. If we do choose to rename package, though, then I think at a minimum the policy should be that: * The package authors are unreachable * There are no suitable alternative names Also, I consider a social rating system (ala Hackage 2) the proper solution to finding the "one true" package for something, not package name space conflicts.
We could certainly allow two maintainers to share the same name of a library. For example, suffices to say that Alice will release only even major versions while Bob will release odd major versions. Since users of the library will give restrictive constraints on the major versions as per PVP, there won't be any clashes at all! We could even use a larger modulus, such as 7, in order to anticipate other maintainers that may want to share the name of the library in future. Yes, I'm joking =). Cheers, -- Felipe.
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 09:56:35AM -0800, Gabriel Gonzalez wrote:
I think the best action is to contact the maintainers. I imagine that most package naming disputes can be resolved this way.
I agree; like I said: (although we'd obviously hope that the parties involved would normally come to an amicable agreement without having to go that far).
Forcefully renaming packages crosses a point of no return, so we should be a little bit more hesitant to invoke that option. If we do choose to rename package, though, then I think at a minimum the policy should be that:
* The package authors are unreachable * There are no suitable alternative names
Hmm, if that's the policy then maybe I should become a package-squatter. There's currently no package called 'haskell', 'language' or 'concurrent', so those seem like good candidates to get started with. I'll just upload some dummy packages now, and hope that I can sell the rights to the names for $10 each in a few years time. Of course, this is an extreme (and hypothetical) example, and I'm not aware of any disputes thus far that haven't been resolved by the relevant parties reaching an agreement by themselves. But I think that it would be a lot better to make a decision about who has the final say now, when we don't need it and can make the decision impartially, than making it once we do need it, and opinions are biased by the particular case that needs it first. Thanks Ian
participants (3)
-
Felipe Almeida Lessa -
Gabriel Gonzalez -
Ian Lynagh