On 24/04/10 01:34, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote: > Keith Sheppard <keiths...@gmail.com> writes: >> What Gwern said for 1) and 3) >> >>> 2) Not all head repositories are kept stable/buildable at all times. >>> >> >> Isn't it bad practice to not have a buildable repo? In any case >> package owners would be free to use or ignore the data as they like, >> but I'm pretty sure it would be useful to many. > > I often work on different sub-parts of my packages; as such the interactions > between them might not work. I don't see why I should ensure that it does, > as the repository is a _development environment_ not a release.
I don't think anyone will *force* you to behave in a particular way. If you don't see the use of a service like this one then don't use it. It's really that simple. The service could even demand opt-in to not waste time/energy on unstable repos. > That said, there are some projects which generally _are_ buildable/usable > for their repositories (e.g. XMonad and XMonad-Contrib). But these are > large multi-person projects with moving targets; the stuff i write is being > developed by myself only. Then there are developers like me, who even on small one-man projects try to keep the official/published repo buildable at all times. I keep my development environment local or sometimes in an un-advertised repo. /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus@therning.org Jabber: magnus@therning.org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe