'temporary' package

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
61 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

'temporary' package

Roman Cheplyaka-2
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
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Oliver Charles-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries



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

Re: 'temporary' package

Roman Cheplyaka-2
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 <[hidden email]> [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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > [hidden email]
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Johan Tibell-2
The breakage is caused due to the upper bound on exceptions being removed between 1.2.0.1 and 1.2.0.2, which of course caused a breakage when one of the dependencies (i.e. exceptions) had a major release. Don't remove upper bounds, it breaks code.

Note that even if we release 1.2.0.3 with re-added upper bounds, it won't fix the issue as cabal will still happily use 1.2.0.2 if the dependency planner deems it's an acceptable version.


On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> [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 <[hidden email]> 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
> > [hidden email]
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries



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

Re: 'temporary' package

Roman Cheplyaka-2
In reply to this post by Roman Cheplyaka-2
* Jake McArthur <[hidden email]> [2014-05-07 08:38:29-0400]
> It's more than just pushing a button. Who knows what kind of free time
> somebody has (they might only be able to bother with github stuff once a
> week...)

Having backup maintainers is the answer.
http://ro-che.info/articles/2014-02-08-my-haskell-will.html

> or what kind of procedures they have for verifying a package meets
> their standards before blessing it?

The change is trivial.

> This seems unreasonable, to me.

Ok.

> On May 7, 2014 8:36 AM, "Roman Cheplyaka" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> [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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libraries mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >
> >

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> [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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> 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

[hidden email]
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Roman Cheplyaka-2
In reply to this post by Roman Cheplyaka-2
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/temporary-rc

I am now looking for backup maintainers for this fork to ensure that a similar
situation won't occur again. Contact me off list if you'd like to become one.

* Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> [2014-05-07 10:50:00+0300]

> 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
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Aloïs Cochard
In reply to this post by Andreas Abel
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> [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 <[hidden email]>
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
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries




_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
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

[hidden email]
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries



--
Alois Cochard

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

Re: 'temporary' package

Carter Schonwald
In reply to this post by Roman Cheplyaka-2
When should we expect a -rc for everything? 

On Friday, May 9, 2014, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/temporary-rc

I am now looking for backup maintainers for this fork to ensure that a similar
situation won't occur again. Contact me off list if you'd like to become one.

* Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;roma@ro-che.info&#39;)">roma@...> [2014-05-07 10:50:00+0300]
> 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
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Roman Cheplyaka-2
The worse people treat their packages, the sooner!

* Carter Schonwald <[hidden email]> [2014-05-09 09:46:01-0400]

> When should we expect a -rc for everything?
>
> On Friday, May 9, 2014, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > http://hackage.haskell.org/package/temporary-rc
> >
> > I am now looking for backup maintainers for this fork to ensure that a
> > similar
> > situation won't occur again. Contact me off list if you'd like to become
> > one.
> >
> > * Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> [2014-05-07
> > 10:50:00+0300]
> > > 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
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Erik Hesselink
Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
initial email...

Erik

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The worse people treat their packages, the sooner!
>
> * Carter Schonwald <[hidden email]> [2014-05-09 09:46:01-0400]
>> When should we expect a -rc for everything?
>>
>> On Friday, May 9, 2014, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > http://hackage.haskell.org/package/temporary-rc
>> >
>> > I am now looking for backup maintainers for this fork to ensure that a
>> > similar
>> > situation won't occur again. Contact me off list if you'd like to become
>> > one.
>> >
>> > * Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> [2014-05-07
>> > 10:50:00+0300]
>> > > 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
> [hidden email]
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Backup maintainer [Re: 'temporary' package]

Andreas Abel
In reply to this post by Aloïs Cochard
Well, not all packages uploaded to hackage are "libraries" in the sense
that other packages rely on them.  There are tons of applications, and
also things intended to be general purpose libraries that never get
enough users.

But once your package is used by enough others that rely on it, you need
a backup maintainer.

One could think of a "ladder" where packages acquire reputation/status,
and from a certain point on one needs a backup maintainer.

On 09.05.2014 15:00, Alois Cochard wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     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
>         <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" <[hidden email]
>             <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email]
>                 <mailto:[hidden email]>> [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
>                     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
>                 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
>                         <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.
>
>

--
Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

[hidden email]
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Backup maintainer [Re: 'temporary' package]

Aloïs Cochard
Oh I see what you mean now Andreas, thanks for the detailed explanation!

I like your idea of "ladder" with packages climbing it, nice way to enforce rule only when really necessary.


On 9 May 2014 15:24, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, not all packages uploaded to hackage are "libraries" in the sense that other packages rely on them.  There are tons of applications, and also things intended to be general purpose libraries that never get enough users.

But once your package is used by enough others that rely on it, you need a backup maintainer.

One could think of a "ladder" where packages acquire reputation/status, and from a certain point on one needs a backup maintainer.

On 09.05.2014 15:00, Alois Cochard wrote:
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 <[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

    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
        <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" <[hidden email]
            <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email]
                <mailto:[hidden email]>> [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
                    <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>

                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
                        <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.



--
Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

[hidden email]
http://www2.tcs.ifi.lmu.de/~abel/



--
Alois Cochard

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

Re: 'temporary' package

Carter Schonwald
In reply to this post by Erik Hesselink
Indeed. Especially since there are people with active  hakage trustee powers, a request on the libraries list to fix an immediate breakage when the maintainer is unreachale for some period of time can now be auctioned upon. 

But this only happens when that request is actually made, along with a concrete fix  proposed and evidence that the maintainer is hard to reach.  

Would somone like to start that request ? 

Note that this is orthogonal to the issue of who will maintain the lib going forward of course. 

On Friday, May 9, 2014, Erik Hesselink <[hidden email]> wrote:
Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
initial email...

Erik

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;roma@ro-che.info&#39;)">roma@...> wrote:
> The worse people treat their packages, the sooner!
>
> * Carter Schonwald <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;carter.schonwald@gmail.com&#39;)">carter.schonwald@...> [2014-05-09 09:46:01-0400]
>> When should we expect a -rc for everything?
>>
>> On Friday, May 9, 2014, Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;roma@ro-che.info&#39;)">roma@...> wrote:
>>
>> > http://hackage.haskell.org/package/temporary-rc
>> >
>> > I am now looking for backup maintainers for this fork to ensure that a
>> > similar
>> > situation won't occur again. Contact me off list if you'd like to become
>> > one.
>> >
>> > * Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;roma@ro-che.info&#39;)">roma@... <javascript:;>> [2014-05-07
>> > 10:50:00+0300]
>> > > 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
> <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;Libraries@haskell.org&#39;)">Libraries@...
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>

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

Re: 'temporary' package

Roman Cheplyaka-2
In reply to this post by Erik Hesselink
* Erik Hesselink <[hidden email]> [2014-05-09 16:19:43+0200]
> Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
> initial email...

In which way am I overreacting?

My initial email said:

> If I don't hear from you in two days, I'll request maintainership and/or
> fork the package.

And that's exactly what I did.

Or, if you're referring to the conversation with Carter, I don't think it was
meant seriously.

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The worse people treat their packages, the sooner!
> >
> > * Carter Schonwald <[hidden email]> [2014-05-09 09:46:01-0400]
> >> When should we expect a -rc for everything?
> >>
> >> On Friday, May 9, 2014, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://hackage.haskell.org/package/temporary-rc
> >> >
> >> > I am now looking for backup maintainers for this fork to ensure that a
> >> > similar
> >> > situation won't occur again. Contact me off list if you'd like to become
> >> > one.
> >> >
> >> > * Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> [2014-05-07
> >> > 10:50:00+0300]
> >> > > 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
> > [hidden email]
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Erik Hesselink
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:

> * Erik Hesselink <[hidden email]> [2014-05-09 16:19:43+0200]
>> Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
>> initial email...
>
> In which way am I overreacting?
>
> My initial email said:
>
>> If I don't hear from you in two days, I'll request maintainership and/or
>> fork the package.
>
> And that's exactly what I did.
>
> Or, if you're referring to the conversation with Carter, I don't think it was
> meant seriously.

Yes, I took that to mean that you thought Max was treating his package
badly. If that's not the case, ignore what I said.

Erik
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Carter Schonwald
In reply to this post by Roman Cheplyaka-2
Yeah the -rc bit is In jest.  But before settling maintainership, what fixes are needed for now? Let's do that then sort out maintainership on a slower time scale. 

On Friday, May 9, 2014, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
* Erik Hesselink <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;hesselink@gmail.com&#39;)">hesselink@...> [2014-05-09 16:19:43+0200]
> Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
> initial email...

In which way am I overreacting?

My initial email said:

> If I don't hear from you in two days, I'll request maintainership and/or
> fork the package.

And that's exactly what I did.

Or, if you're referring to the conversation with Carter, I don't think it was
meant seriously.

> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;roma@ro-che.info&#39;)">roma@...> wrote:
> > The worse people treat their packages, the sooner!
> >
> > * Carter Schonwald <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;carter.schonwald@gmail.com&#39;)">carter.schonwald@...> [2014-05-09 09:46:01-0400]
> >> When should we expect a -rc for everything?
> >>
> >> On Friday, May 9, 2014, Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;roma@ro-che.info&#39;)">roma@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://hackage.haskell.org/package/temporary-rc
> >> >
> >> > I am now looking for backup maintainers for this fork to ensure that a
> >> > similar
> >> > situation won't occur again. Contact me off list if you'd like to become
> >> > one.
> >> >
> >> > * Roman Cheplyaka <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;roma@ro-che.info&#39;)">roma@... <javascript:;>> [2014-05-07
> >> > 10:50:00+0300]
> >> > > 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
> > <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;Libraries@haskell.org&#39;)">Libraries@...
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
> >

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

Re: Backup maintainer [Re: 'temporary' package]

Carter Schonwald
In reply to this post by Aloïs Cochard
Perhaps.  Otoh, there are a number of admins / trustees for hackage who can help when there's systematic issues. 

On Friday, May 9, 2014, Alois Cochard <[hidden email]> wrote:
Oh I see what you mean now Andreas, thanks for the detailed explanation!

I like your idea of "ladder" with packages climbing it, nice way to enforce rule only when really necessary.


On 9 May 2014 15:24, Andreas Abel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, not all packages uploaded to hackage are "libraries" in the sense that other packages rely on them.  There are tons of applications, and also things intended to be general purpose libraries that never get enough users.

But once your package is used by enough others that rely on it, you need a backup maintainer.

One could think of a "ladder" where packages acquire reputation/status, and from a certain point on one needs a backup maintainer.

On 09.05.2014 15:00, Alois Cochard wrote:
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 <[hidden email]
<mailto:[hidden email].de>> wrote:

    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
        <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" <[hidden email]
            <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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 <[hidden email]
                <mailto:[hidden email]>> [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
                    <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>

                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
                        <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.



--
Andreas Abel  <><      Du bist der geliebte Mensch.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers and Gothenburg University, Sweden

[hidden email]
--
Alois Cochard

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

Re: 'temporary' package

Niklas Hambüchen
In reply to this post by Erik Hesselink
I can follow Roman's point and don't find it overreacting.

When you're building software on which your success depends (e.g. for
your job or when it fuels your research), its very obstructing when the
ecosystem around you breaks, and you want it fixed as soon as possible.

Of course having your own fork for everything solves that, but it'd be
great to avoid that effort and it breaks a key good thing in the Haskell
ecosystem: For many things there's only one package that does it right,
and it would be nice to keep that up.

On 09/05/14 15:19, Erik Hesselink wrote:
> Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
> initial email...
>
> Erik
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'temporary' package

Erik Hesselink
I can see this. However, there are solutions available. Local forks
you already mentioned (and setting up your own hackage is very easy),
but there are also freeze files in cabal now. Additionally (sorry, I
have to mention it) upper bounds make builds much more stable. This
whole thing wouldn't have happened if 'temporary' had an upper bound
on its dependency on 'exceptions'.

Of course your builds should stay working (which is why I advocate
upper bounds) but there should also be a sense of package ownership, I
think. The current trustee setup is meant for small fixes when an
owner is gone/missing.

Erik

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Niklas Hambüchen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I can follow Roman's point and don't find it overreacting.
>
> When you're building software on which your success depends (e.g. for
> your job or when it fuels your research), its very obstructing when the
> ecosystem around you breaks, and you want it fixed as soon as possible.
>
> Of course having your own fork for everything solves that, but it'd be
> great to avoid that effort and it breaks a key good thing in the Haskell
> ecosystem: For many things there's only one package that does it right,
> and it would be nice to keep that up.
>
> On 09/05/14 15:19, Erik Hesselink wrote:
>> Aren't you overreacting a bit? It's only been two days since your
>> initial email...
>>
>> Erik
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
1234