Re: 'temporary' package

To add to this remark, Debian has an explicit process for situations just like this called Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs) which you can read about here: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu It seems like having a similar capability within Hackage, or more defined policy about when it kicks in, would be a good idea. The way it works in Debian, the original maintainer is not stripped of his role and a fork is not necessary. NMUs are often only done in extreme cases where the changes are small. (extreme breakage of a library, fixing security vulnerabilities, and so on) Of course, collaborative maintenance helps as well, but ultimately it's helpful to have some process to deploy quick fixes in a timely manner. James Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
I will observe that over the years, the Debian project has gradually evolved toward shared, or even group, maintainership for important packages---for the same reason: someone fafiates and the whole ecosystem starts piling up behind an important package whose maintainer is unresponsive.
Mike.
Niklas Hambüchen
writes: It's also worth mentioning that Hackage 2 has a nice "multiple maintainers" functionality, see for example this:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/tasty/maintainers/
It's not a very visible feature though, the package page doesn't like it and it's not visible how many maintainers a package has (where having more than one could be a good quality metric that maybe should be advertised).
How about automatically bothering single maintainers with a "do you not want to add another maintainer on Hackage" email once they exceed some popularity threshold?
As an example, the "6289 downloads in last 30 days" would make a nice popularity indicator.
On 09/05/14 18:05, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
On 09/05/14 16:14, Carter Schonwald wrote:
You do raise a good point, should taking over maintainership of a library adhere to PVP expectations? I don't think so - taking over maintainership should be a last resort in my opinion.
Having backup maintainers becoming common seems a better solution. _______________________________________________ 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

On 2014-05-10 23:21, James Curbo wrote:
To add to this remark, Debian has an explicit process for situations just like this called Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs) which you can read about here: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu
It seems like having a similar capability within Hackage, or more defined policy about when it kicks in, would be a good idea. The way it works in Debian, the original maintainer is not stripped of his role and a fork is not necessary. NMUs are often only done in extreme cases where the changes are small. (extreme breakage of a library, fixing security vulnerabilities, and so on)
Of course, collaborative maintenance helps as well, but ultimately it's helpful to have some process to deploy quick fixes in a timely manner.
James
As usual Debian has encountered and solved all these problems before. Sounds eminently sensible, so +1 to such a policy change.

+1 to Non-Maintainer-Uploads in cases where maintainers are not responsive and fixes are on the "administrative" side, like making a package compile with a new ghc, base, etc. Hackage-1 allowed NMUs unrestrictedly which is a double edged sword. A possible workflow for a future hackage could be. 1. A non-maintainer makes an upload request on hackage. (Of course, he should communicate with the maintainer before by email etc.) 2. The maintainer can GRANT or DENY. On DENY, the upload request is rejected. The maintainer indicates that he takes care of matters himself. On GRANT, the upload is made effective. The maintainer approves the fixes by the NM. 3. If the maintainer does not respond to the request, after some timeout, say a month, the request is forwarded to the hackage admins. They can also GRANT or DENY. 4. Finally, if the hackage admins also timeout, then the upload is granted. Such a process would not affect maintainership and would not take away any power from the maintainer. It would allow non-maintainers to help with updating package to new ecosystems. This is a compromise between hackage-1's "everyone can upload" and hackage-2's "only the maintainer can upload". On 11.05.2014 01:41, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
On 2014-05-10 23:21, James Curbo wrote:
To add to this remark, Debian has an explicit process for situations just like this called Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs) which you can read about here: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu
It seems like having a similar capability within Hackage, or more defined policy about when it kicks in, would be a good idea. The way it works in Debian, the original maintainer is not stripped of his role and a fork is not necessary. NMUs are often only done in extreme cases where the changes are small. (extreme breakage of a library, fixing security vulnerabilities, and so on)
Of course, collaborative maintenance helps as well, but ultimately it's helpful to have some process to deploy quick fixes in a timely manner.
James
As usual Debian has encountered and solved all these problems before. Sounds eminently sensible, so +1 to such a policy change.
_______________________________________________ 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/

On 2014-05-11 at 01:41:56 +0200, Bardur Arantsson wrote: [...]
As usual Debian has encountered and solved all these problems before. Sounds eminently sensible, so +1 to such a policy change.
There's IMHO an important difference between Hackage and how Debian operates: Debian repackages upstream packages into a unified package repository and also takes care of applying add-on patches to fix bugs and/or integrate better with other repackaged Debian packages in the current Debian release. There is not much need for the upstream maintainer to cooperate. Hackage, on the other hand, is both, a package repository *and* a place where upstream authors publish their packages[1]. So on Hackage there needs to active cooperation between package authors and Hackage maintainers. For instance, package authors may not be bothered into supporting 3-year old GHC setups which, OTOH, Hackage trustee/maintainers might be willing to put in effort for, but there still needs to be an agreement where the Hackage trustee authority ends, and how absolute the package's authors wishes are in the context of some form of Utilitaranism maximizing the total benefit for everyone using Hackage. [1]: IMHO, publishing a package on Hackage also comes with a reasonable level of responsibility for package authors, as Hackage should be about keeping packages in a working state. It'd be a pity for Hackage to degenerate into a pastebin-like dumping space for bitrotting code where you have filter out all the noise to find out which packages are still maintained and working. (Maybe the HP as the authority to pick go-to implementations may help here in the future, but I'm afraid we still have too many places with competing designs (with different trade-offs) for the same task, and I see the HP library addition process being blocked by that for the next few years -- but that's a worth a whole thread/discussion of its own)
participants (4)
-
Andreas Abel
-
Bardur Arantsson
-
Herbert Valerio Riedel
-
James Curbo