On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Christopher Done <chrisd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 3 October 2010 12:10, Michael Snoyman <mich...@snoyman.com> wrote: >> I would actually do the opposite: we can put the libraries/frameworks >> that we are sure *are* active into the Active section and put >> everything else into Inactive. I have a feeling we'll be pretty close >> on the mark with our guesses; a quick look at the last upload date on >> Hackage should be sufficient. People are *much* more likely to move >> stuff from Inactive to Active than the other way around. >> >> We can also send out an email to the cafe/web-devel with a list of >> packages we plan to mark as inactive and see if anyone objects. If no >> one is willing to stand up for a package, odds are it's dead. > > That sounds like a good approach. Anyway, it's not the end of the > world if a package gets put in inactive. Ones I know are definitely > active are: > > Happstack > Haskell on a Horse > loli > Salvia > Snap > Yesod > Turbinado -- is this still active? Alson Kemp basically ditched Haskell, so... > Yesod > > The others... I don't know. >
I think it's fair to say that turbinado is inactive. But keep in mind that we should probably look at more than just the frameworks: servers, templating, etc. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
