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 <petr....@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/5/6 Tillmann Rendel <ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de> > >> Petr Pudlák wrote: >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Niklas Hambüchen* <m...@nh2.me <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'?" >>> 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 > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe