Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
28 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Petr Pudlák
Hi,

on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by most:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
Date: 2013/5/4
...
I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
indications concerning this.

This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."

Best regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Doug Burke-2


On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by most:
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>> Date: 2013/5/4
>> ...
>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>> quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>> indications concerning this.
>
>
> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>
> Best regards,
> Petr
>

For those packages that give a repository, a query could be done automatically to see when it was last updated. It's not the same thing as 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those people with many packages on hackage.

Doug


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Petr Pudlák
I'd say:
- If a package has UNMAINTAINED (perhaps also DEPRECATED?) somewhere in its title/description, don't do anything.
- Otherwise if the package hasn't been updated for past 3 months, send a quarterly reminder (including the information under what conditions the reminder is sent).



2013/5/5 Doug Burke <[hidden email]>


On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by most:
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>> Date: 2013/5/4
>> ...
>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>> quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>> indications concerning this.
>
>
> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>
> Best regards,
> Petr
>

For those packages that give a repository, a query could be done automatically to see when it was last updated. It's not the same thing as 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those people with many packages on hackage.

Doug



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Joe Quinn
And we can have something on hackage that does this check automatically! And we can put "unmaintained" in the description! And then we can leave it unmaintained!

"Unmaintained" should have its own flag, I think...

On 5/5/2013 2:28 PM, Petr Pudlák wrote:
I'd say:
- If a package has UNMAINTAINED (perhaps also DEPRECATED?) somewhere in its title/description, don't do anything.
- Otherwise if the package hasn't been updated for past 3 months, send a quarterly reminder (including the information under what conditions the reminder is sent).



2013/5/5 Doug Burke <[hidden email]>


On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by most:
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>> Date: 2013/5/4
>> ...
>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>> quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>> indications concerning this.
>
>
> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>
> Best regards,
> Petr
>

For those packages that give a repository, a query could be done automatically to see when it was last updated. It's not the same thing as 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those people with many packages on hackage.

Doug




_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Felipe Lessa
In reply to this post by Doug Burke-2
Just checking the repo wouldn't work.  It may still have some activity
but not be maintained and vice-versa.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Doug Burke <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by
>> most:
>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>>> Date: 2013/5/4
>>> ...
>>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>>> quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>>> indications concerning this.
>>
>>
>> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you
>> consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply
>> and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some
>> red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Petr
>>
>
> For those packages that give a repository, a query could be done
> automatically to see when it was last updated. It's not the same thing as
> 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those people with many packages
> on hackage.
>
> Doug
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>



--
Felipe.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Conrad Parker
On 6 May 2013 09:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just checking the repo wouldn't work.  It may still have some activity
> but not be maintained and vice-versa.

ok, how about this: if the maintainer feels that their repo and
maintenance activities are non-injective they can additionally provide
an http-accessible URL for the maintenance activity. Hackage can then
do an HTTP HEAD request on that URL and use the Last-Modified response
header as an indication of the last time of maintenance activity. I'm
being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but actually this would allow you to
point hackage to a blog as evidence of maintenance activity.

I like the idea of just pinging the code repo.

Conrad.

> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Doug Burke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by
>>> most:
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: 2013/5/4
>>>> ...
>>>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>>>> quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>>>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>>>> indications concerning this.
>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you
>>> consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply
>>> and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some
>>> red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Petr
>>>
>>
>> For those packages that give a repository, a query could be done
>> automatically to see when it was last updated. It's not the same thing as
>> 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those people with many packages
>> on hackage.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Felipe.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Lyndon Maydwell
But what if the package is already perfect?

Jokes aside, I think that activity alone wouldn't be a good indicator.


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Conrad Parker <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 6 May 2013 09:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just checking the repo wouldn't work.  It may still have some activity
> but not be maintained and vice-versa.

ok, how about this: if the maintainer feels that their repo and
maintenance activities are non-injective they can additionally provide
an http-accessible URL for the maintenance activity. Hackage can then
do an HTTP HEAD request on that URL and use the Last-Modified response
header as an indication of the last time of maintenance activity. I'm
being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but actually this would allow you to
point hackage to a blog as evidence of maintenance activity.

I like the idea of just pinging the code repo.

Conrad.

> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Doug Burke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by
>>> most:
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: 2013/5/4
>>>> ...
>>>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>>>> quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>>>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>>>> indications concerning this.
>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you
>>> consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply
>>> and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some
>>> red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Petr
>>>
>>
>> For those packages that give a repository, a query could be done
>> automatically to see when it was last updated. It's not the same thing as
>> 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those people with many packages
>> on hackage.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Felipe.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Clark Gaebel-2
If there's a github link in the package url, it could check the last update to the default branch. If it's more than 6 months ago, an email to the maintainer of "is this package maintained?" can be sent. If there's no reply in 3 months, the package is marked as unmaintained. If the email is ever responded to or a new version is uploaded, the package can be un-marked.
  - Clark
On Sunday, May 5, 2013, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
I've got it!

The answer was staring us in the face all along... We can just introduce backwards-compatibility breaking changes into GHC-head and see if the project fails to compile for x-time! That way we're SURE it's unmaintained.

I'll stop sending emails now.


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Clark Gaebel <[hidden email]> wrote:
If there's a github link in the package url, it could check the last update to the default branch. If it's more than 6 months ago, an email to the maintainer of "is this package maintained?" can be sent. If there's no reply in 3 months, the package is marked as unmaintained. If the email is ever responded to or a new version is uploaded, the package can be un-marked.

  - Clark


On Sunday, May 5, 2013, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
But what if the package is already perfect?

Jokes aside, I think that activity alone wouldn't be a good indicator.


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Conrad Parker <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 6 May 2013 09:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Just checking the repo wouldn't work.  It may still have some activity
> but not be maintained and vice-versa.

ok, how about this: if the maintainer feels that their repo and
maintenance activities are non-injective they can additionally provide
an http-accessible URL for the maintenance activity. Hackage can then
do an HTTP HEAD request on that URL and use the Last-Modified response
header as an indication of the last time of maintenance activity. I'm
being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but actually this would allow you to
point hackage to a blog as evidence of maintenance activity.

I like the idea of just pinging the code repo.

Conrad.

> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Doug Burke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by
>>> most:
>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>>>> Date: 2013/5/4
>>>> ...
>>>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>>>> quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>>>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>>>> indications concerning this.
>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If you
>>> consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit reply
>>> and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would display some
>>> red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Petr
>>>
>>
>> For those packages that give a repository, a query could be done
>> automatically to see when it was last updated. It's not the same thing as
>> 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those people with many packages
>> on hackage.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Felipe.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Niklas Hambüchen
I don't think that activity in the repo has too much to do with
something being maintained.

Maintainance is a thing humans commit to, so the question of whether
something is maintained should be a question to a human.

I often push a quick build failure fix for my packages, some of which I
would still in not want to call "maintained".

On Mon 06 May 2013 10:57:49 SGT, Clark Gaebel wrote:

> If there's a github link in the package url, it could check the last
> update to the default branch. If it's more than 6 months ago, an email
> to the maintainer of "is this package maintained?" can be sent. If
> there's no reply in 3 months, the package is marked as unmaintained.
> If the email is ever responded to or a new version is uploaded, the
> package can be un-marked.
>   - Clark
> On Sunday, May 5, 2013, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
>
>     I've got it!
>
>     The answer was staring us in the face all along... We can just
>     introduce backwards-compatibility breaking changes into GHC-head
>     and see if the project fails to compile for x-time! That way we're
>     SURE it's unmaintained.
>
>     I'll stop sending emails now.
>
>
>     On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Clark Gaebel
>     <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>         If there's a github link in the package url, it could check
>         the last update to the default branch. If it's more than 6
>         months ago, an email to the maintainer of "is this package
>         maintained?" can be sent. If there's no reply in 3 months, the
>         package is marked as unmaintained. If the email is ever
>         responded to or a new version is uploaded, the package can be
>         un-marked.
>
>           - Clark
>
>
>         On Sunday, May 5, 2013, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
>
>             But what if the package is already perfect?
>
>             Jokes aside, I think that activity alone wouldn't be a
>             good indicator.
>
>
>             On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Conrad Parker
>             <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>                 On 6 May 2013 09:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa
>                 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>                 > Just checking the repo wouldn't work.  It may still
>                 have some activity
>                 > but not be maintained and vice-versa.
>
>                 ok, how about this: if the maintainer feels that their
>                 repo and
>                 maintenance activities are non-injective they can
>                 additionally provide
>                 an http-accessible URL for the maintenance activity.
>                 Hackage can then
>                 do an HTTP HEAD request on that URL and use the
>                 Last-Modified response
>                 header as an indication of the last time of
>                 maintenance activity. I'm
>                 being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but actually this would
>                 allow you to
>                 point hackage to a blog as evidence of maintenance
>                 activity.
>
>                 I like the idea of just pinging the code repo.
>
>                 Conrad.
>
>                 > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Doug Burke
>                 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>                 >>
>                 >> On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák"
>                 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>                 >>>
>                 >>> Hi,
>                 >>>
>                 >>> on another thread there was a suggestion which
>                 perhaps went unnoticed by
>                 >>> most:
>                 >>>
>                 >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>                 >>>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>                 >>>> Date: 2013/5/4
>                 >>>> ...
>                 >>>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending
>                 every package maintainer a
>                 >>>> quarterly question "Would you still call your
>                 project X 'maintained'?"
>                 >>>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could
>                 really give us better
>                 >>>> indications concerning this.
>                 >>>
>                 >>>
>                 >>> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could
>                 be as simple as "If you
>                 >>> consider yourself to be the maintainer of package
>                 X please just hit reply
>                 >>> and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd
>                 just would display some
>                 >>> red text like "This package seems to be
>                 unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>                 >>>
>                 >>> Best regards,
>                 >>> Petr
>                 >>>
>                 >>
>                 >> For those packages that give a repository, a query
>                 could be done
>                 >> automatically to see when it was last updated. It's
>                 not the same thing as
>                 >> 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those
>                 people with many packages
>                 >> on hackage.
>                 >>
>                 >> Doug
>                 >>
>                 >>
>                 >> _______________________________________________
>                 >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>                 >> [hidden email]
>                 >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>                 >>
>                 >
>                 >
>                 >
>                 > --
>                 > Felipe.
>                 >
>                 > _______________________________________________
>                 > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>                 > [hidden email]
>                 > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>                 [hidden email]
>                 http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Jeremy Shaw-3
Yes -- being maintained, and have a lot of commit activity are not the
same thing. There are many simple libraries which do not require much
ongoing develop. They are designed to do something of limited scope,
and they only need to be updated when something breaks.

I have thought that a more interesting metric might be to send the
maintainer an email when their package stops building automatically on
hackage. Then assign some weight based on whether or not they fix
things, and how often.

- jeremy

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't think that activity in the repo has too much to do with
> something being maintained.
>
> Maintainance is a thing humans commit to, so the question of whether
> something is maintained should be a question to a human.
>
> I often push a quick build failure fix for my packages, some of which I
> would still in not want to call "maintained".
>
> On Mon 06 May 2013 10:57:49 SGT, Clark Gaebel wrote:
>> If there's a github link in the package url, it could check the last
>> update to the default branch. If it's more than 6 months ago, an email
>> to the maintainer of "is this package maintained?" can be sent. If
>> there's no reply in 3 months, the package is marked as unmaintained.
>> If the email is ever responded to or a new version is uploaded, the
>> package can be un-marked.
>>   - Clark
>> On Sunday, May 5, 2013, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
>>
>>     I've got it!
>>
>>     The answer was staring us in the face all along... We can just
>>     introduce backwards-compatibility breaking changes into GHC-head
>>     and see if the project fails to compile for x-time! That way we're
>>     SURE it's unmaintained.
>>
>>     I'll stop sending emails now.
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Clark Gaebel
>>     <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>         If there's a github link in the package url, it could check
>>         the last update to the default branch. If it's more than 6
>>         months ago, an email to the maintainer of "is this package
>>         maintained?" can be sent. If there's no reply in 3 months, the
>>         package is marked as unmaintained. If the email is ever
>>         responded to or a new version is uploaded, the package can be
>>         un-marked.
>>
>>           - Clark
>>
>>
>>         On Sunday, May 5, 2013, Lyndon Maydwell wrote:
>>
>>             But what if the package is already perfect?
>>
>>             Jokes aside, I think that activity alone wouldn't be a
>>             good indicator.
>>
>>
>>             On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Conrad Parker
>>             <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>                 On 6 May 2013 09:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa
>>                 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>                 > Just checking the repo wouldn't work.  It may still
>>                 have some activity
>>                 > but not be maintained and vice-versa.
>>
>>                 ok, how about this: if the maintainer feels that their
>>                 repo and
>>                 maintenance activities are non-injective they can
>>                 additionally provide
>>                 an http-accessible URL for the maintenance activity.
>>                 Hackage can then
>>                 do an HTTP HEAD request on that URL and use the
>>                 Last-Modified response
>>                 header as an indication of the last time of
>>                 maintenance activity. I'm
>>                 being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but actually this would
>>                 allow you to
>>                 point hackage to a blog as evidence of maintenance
>>                 activity.
>>
>>                 I like the idea of just pinging the code repo.
>>
>>                 Conrad.
>>
>>                 > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Doug Burke
>>                 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>                 >>
>>                 >> On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák"
>>                 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>> Hi,
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>> on another thread there was a suggestion which
>>                 perhaps went unnoticed by
>>                 >>> most:
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>                 >>>> From: Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]>
>>                 >>>> Date: 2013/5/4
>>                 >>>> ...
>>                 >>>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending
>>                 every package maintainer a
>>                 >>>> quarterly question "Would you still call your
>>                 project X 'maintained'?"
>>                 >>>> for each package they maintain; Hackage could
>>                 really give us better
>>                 >>>> indications concerning this.
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could
>>                 be as simple as "If you
>>                 >>> consider yourself to be the maintainer of package
>>                 X please just hit reply
>>                 >>> and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd
>>                 just would display some
>>                 >>> red text like "This package seems to be
>>                 unmaintained since D.M.Y."
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>> Best regards,
>>                 >>> Petr
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>
>>                 >> For those packages that give a repository, a query
>>                 could be done
>>                 >> automatically to see when it was last updated. It's
>>                 not the same thing as
>>                 >> 'being maintained', but is less annoying for those
>>                 people with many packages
>>                 >> on hackage.
>>                 >>
>>                 >> Doug
>>                 >>
>>                 >>
>>                 >> _______________________________________________
>>                 >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>                 >> [hidden email]
>>                 >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>                 >>
>>                 >
>>                 >
>>                 >
>>                 > --
>>                 > Felipe.
>>                 >
>>                 > _______________________________________________
>>                 > Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>                 > [hidden email]
>>                 > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                 Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>                 [hidden email]
>>                 http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Tillmann Rendel-5
In reply to this post by Petr Pudlák
Hi,

Petr Pudlák wrote:

>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>     From: *Niklas Hambüchen* <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     Date: 2013/5/4
>     ...
>     I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
>     quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
>     for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
>     indications concerning this.
>
>
> This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If
> you consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit
> reply and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would
> display some red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since
> D.M.Y."

I like the idea of displaying additional info about the status of
package development, but I don't like the idea of annoying hard-working
package maintainers with emails about their perfect packages that
actually didn't need any updates since ages ago.

So what about this: Hackage could try to automatically collect and
display information about the development status of packages that allow
potential users to *guess* whether the package is maintained or not.
Currently, potential users have to collect this information themselves.

Here are some examples I have in mind:

  * Fetch the timestamp of the latest commit from the HEAD repo
  * Fetch the number of open issues from the issue tracker
  * Display reverse dependencies on the main hackage page
  * Show the timestamp of the last Hackage upload of the uploader

Tillmann

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Niklas Hambüchen
On 06/05/13 17:46, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> So what about this: Hackage could try to automatically collect and
> display information about the development status of packages that allow
> potential users to *guess*

In my opinion, that's what we have now.

Obtaining the info in the four points you mention from their respective
sources usually takes less than a minute in sum - hackage saving me that
minute would give me little added value.

Having the metrics you mention is nice, but still they are just metrics
and say little the only thing that's important:

   Is there a human who commits themselves to this package?

> I like the idea of displaying additional info about the status of
> package development, but I don't like the idea of annoying hard-working
> package maintainers with emails about their perfect packages

I really think this is not too big of a deal, getting one email every 3
months and clicking a few checkboxes.

Probably fits into one cabal update.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Tillmann Rendel-5
Hi,

Niklas Hambüchen wrote:

> Having the metrics you mention is nice, but still they are just metrics
> and say little the only thing that's important:
>
>     Is there a human who commits themselves to this package?
>
>> I like the idea of displaying additional info about the status of
>> package development, but I don't like the idea of annoying hard-working
>> package maintainers with emails about their perfect packages
>
> I really think this is not too big of a deal, getting one email every 3
> months and clicking a few checkboxes.

Is "a human clicked the check box" a good metric for "a human commits
themselves to this package"?

   Tillmann

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Lyndon Maydwell
In reply to this post by Niklas Hambüchen
Don't underestimate how greatly people appreciate being saved a couple of minutes!


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 06/05/13 17:46, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> So what about this: Hackage could try to automatically collect and
> display information about the development status of packages that allow
> potential users to *guess*

In my opinion, that's what we have now.

Obtaining the info in the four points you mention from their respective
sources usually takes less than a minute in sum - hackage saving me that
minute would give me little added value.

Having the metrics you mention is nice, but still they are just metrics
and say little the only thing that's important:

   Is there a human who commits themselves to this package?

> I like the idea of displaying additional info about the status of
> package development, but I don't like the idea of annoying hard-working
> package maintainers with emails about their perfect packages

I really think this is not too big of a deal, getting one email every 3
months and clicking a few checkboxes.

Probably fits into one cabal update.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Niklas Hambüchen
In reply to this post by Tillmann Rendel-5
On 06/05/13 20:06, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> Is "a human clicked the check box" a good metric for "a human commits
> themselves to this package"?

If the check box has the text "Do you want this thing to be called
'maintained' on Hackage" next to it, yes.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Tobias Dammers
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:14:59PM +0800, Niklas Hambüchen wrote:
> On 06/05/13 20:06, Tillmann Rendel wrote:
> > Is "a human clicked the check box" a good metric for "a human commits
> > themselves to this package"?
>
> If the check box has the text "Do you want this thing to be called
> 'maintained' on Hackage" next to it, yes.

The problem is that people tend to (truthfully) check such a box, then
stop maintaining the package for whatever reasons, and never bother
unchecking the box.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Niklas Hambüchen
Well, that's what the "once every 3 months" is good for.

On Mon 06 May 2013 20:34:13 SGT, Tobias Dammers wrote:
> The problem is that people tend to (truthfully) check such a box, then
> stop maintaining the package for whatever reasons, and never bother
> unchecking the box.


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Carter Schonwald
is that really a problem though? 

Who's problem are we trying to solve? Is this being proposed to help seasoned haskellers, or make getting started easier for new folks?

those are two VERY different problems. Also many of the maintainers for heavily used packages are incredibly busy as is, do they need to keep track of even *more* email? I'd hope not. 

In some respects,  just having the hackage2 deps and revdeps stats is a good proxy for how likely a package is to be well maintained. 


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, that's what the "once every 3 months" is good for.

On Mon 06 May 2013 20:34:13 SGT, Tobias Dammers wrote:
> The problem is that people tend to (truthfully) check such a box, then
> stop maintaining the package for whatever reasons, and never bother
> unchecking the box.


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Felipe Lessa
I do think it's a real problem even for seasoned haskellers.  I don't have problems in remembering which packages I should use for the things I've already used before recently, but I need to search Hackage just as everyone else as soon as I need to do something new.

I also agree that this is more of a social problem not a tooling one.  Hackage would just provide a tool for helping this kind of social interaction.  


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Carter Schonwald <[hidden email]> wrote:
is that really a problem though? 

Who's problem are we trying to solve? Is this being proposed to help seasoned haskellers, or make getting started easier for new folks?

those are two VERY different problems. Also many of the maintainers for heavily used packages are incredibly busy as is, do they need to keep track of even *more* email? I'd hope not. 

In some respects,  just having the hackage2 deps and revdeps stats is a good proxy for how likely a package is to be well maintained. 


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, that's what the "once every 3 months" is good for.

On Mon 06 May 2013 20:34:13 SGT, Tobias Dammers wrote:
> The problem is that people tend to (truthfully) check such a box, then
> stop maintaining the package for whatever reasons, and never bother
> unchecking the box.


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe


_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe




--
Felipe.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hackage checking maintainership of packages

Petr Pudlák
In reply to this post by Tillmann Rendel-5
2013/5/6 Tillmann Rendel <[hidden email]>
Petr Pudlák wrote:

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: *Niklas Hambüchen* <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
    Date: 2013/5/4
    ...
    I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
    quarterly question "Would you still call your project X 'maintained'?"
    for each package they maintain; Hackage could really give us better
    indications concerning this.


This sounds to me like a very good idea. It could be as simple as "If
you consider yourself to be the maintainer of package X please just hit
reply and send." If Hackage doesn't get an answer, it'd just would
display some red text like "This package seems to be unmaintained since
D.M.Y."

I like the idea of displaying additional info about the status of package development, but I don't like the idea of annoying hard-working package maintainers with emails about their perfect packages that actually didn't need any updates since ages ago.

I understand, but replying to an email with an empty body or clicking on a link once in a few months doesn't seem to be an issue for me. And if somebody is very busy and doesn't update the package, it's more fair to signal from the start that (s)he doesn't want to maintain the package.

Personally it happened to me perhaps several times that I used a promising package and discovered later that's it's not being maintained. I'd say that the amount of time required to confirm if authors maintain their packages is negligible compared to the amount of time people lose this way.

Just out of curiosity, do you have some examples of such packages, that are being maintained, but not updated since they're near perfect? I'd like to know if this is a real issue. It seems to me
 

So what about this: Hackage could try to automatically collect and display information about the development status of packages that allow potential users to *guess* whether the package is maintained or not. Currently, potential users have to collect this information themselves.

Here are some examples I have in mind:

 * Fetch the timestamp of the latest commit from the HEAD repo
 * Fetch the number of open issues from the issue tracker
 * Display reverse dependencies on the main hackage page
 * Show the timestamp of the last Hackage upload of the uploader

Tillmann

Those are good ideas. Some suggestions:

I think we already have the timestamp of each upload, this already gives some information. Perhaps we could add a very simple feature saying how long ago that was and adding a warning color (like yellow if more than a year and red if more than two years).

Reverse dependencies would certainly help a lot, but it works only for libraries, not for programs. (Although it's less likely that someone would search hackage for programs.)

The problem with issue trackers is that (a) many packages don't have one, (b) there are many different issue trackers.


Best regards,
Petr

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
12