07.05.2013 14:21, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic пишет:
On 7 May 2013 17:36, Ilya Portnov wrote:
Hi Cafe.
I have thought that a more interesting metric might be to send the
maintainer an email when their package stops building automatically on
hackage.
I think, this is "must have" feature for new
Some further ideas:
- Make the periodic maintainership reminders optional. Every developer
would be able to choose if (s)he wishes to receive them or not. I believe
many would choose to receive them.
- Maintain the last date the maintainership has been verified - either by
an upload of a new vers
+1. I would be more than happy to receive such an email every 3 months and
quickly scan the page to update the "maintained" status for each of the
packages where I'm marked as the maintainer.
One modification I would make is to persist the checked state across emails.
They should all be uncheck
On 7 May 2013 17:36, Ilya Portnov wrote:
> Hi Cafe.
>
>
>
>> I have thought that a more interesting metric might be to send the
>> maintainer an email when their package stops building automatically on
>> hackage.
>
>
> I think, this is "must have" feature for new hackage. If error was occured
> d
Hi Cafe.
I have thought that a more interesting metric might be to send the
maintainer an email when their package stops building automatically
on
hackage.
I think, this is "must have" feature for new hackage. If error was
occured during build, send email to maintainer: "Error occured whil
Being in favor of not needlessly harassing people, even for a few minutes, I
would favor issuing such emails only when there is some reason to believe that
the package is not maintained. The two situations I can see that would justify
such an email:
- A dependency exceeds the upper bound listed
On Monday 06 May 2013 14:34:13 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.
I think there should be just one mail per maintainer mail address, not per
pack
Deepseq comes to mind regarding a "perfect" package that doesn't require
active maintenance.
- Clark
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Petr Pudlák wrote:
> 2013/5/6 Tillmann Rendel
>
>> Petr Pudlák wrote:
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>>> From: *Niklas Hambüchen* mail
2013/5/6 Tillmann Rendel
> Petr Pudlák wrote:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: *Niklas Hambüchen* mailto:m...@nh2.me>>
>> Date: 2013/5/4
>> ...
>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package
>> maintainer a
>> quarterly question "Would
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
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
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.
___
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
> 'maintai
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.
___
Don't underestimate how greatly people appreciate being saved a couple of
minutes!
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Niklas Hambüchen 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 develop
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 developmen
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 m
Hi,
Petr Pudlák wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: *Niklas Hambüchen* mailto:m...@nh2.me>>
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'?"
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 inter
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
woul
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 re
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 wrote:
> On 6 May 2013 09:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa wrote:
> > Just checking the repo wouldn't work. It may still have some activity
On 6 May 2013 09:42, Felipe Almeida Lessa 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
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 wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by
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 UNMAINTAINE
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
On May 5, 2013 7:25 AM, "Petr Pudlák" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by
most:
>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Niklas Hambüchen
>> Date: 2013/5/4
>> ...
>> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package ma
Hi,
on another thread there was a suggestion which perhaps went unnoticed by
most:
-- Forwarded message --
> From: Niklas Hambüchen
> Date: 2013/5/4
> ...
> I would even be happy with newhackage sending every package maintainer a
> quarterly question "Would you still call your pr
28 matches
Mail list logo
