On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Henning Thielemann <lemm...@henning-thielemann.de> wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010, Christopher Done wrote: > >> On 6 October 2010 12:47, Henning Thielemann >> <thunderb...@henning-thielemann.de> wrote: >>> >>> I for instance use http-shed and mohws all the time. They do what they >>> shall >>> do for me. I maintain mohws >> >> Please move the ones you use and maintain to the active list! > > I'm generally not glad that some people rearrange existing structure and > expect that all of the affected authors follow. It's already tedious to > catch up with the yearly changes in GHC's package and other base packages > (e.g. transformers recently), and annoying when people propose to mark > packages as "inactive" or "unmaintained" in Hackage whenever the package > authors did not update their packages so far (and certainly lose > compatibility to older 'base' versions this way). > I would be glad if there is no further action to be taken for package > authors, who added their packages somewhen in the past and don't see a > reason to regularly check whether their packages are still listed in the > Wiki, without being marked "inactive" or so. If you think the re-structuring > is necessary, then at least ask the maintainers, whether they still maintain > their packages, or just sort the packages according to the degree of > activity you assume, but stay away from categorizing the packages in > "active" and "inactive" based on speculation.
I agree that it can be tedious to keep up with these changes, but the alternative is stagnation. Just a few years ago, I was in the place of the newbie staring at the wiki pages talking about all the wonderful ways of combining the CGI monad with fastcgi and xhtml and combinators, and something about monad transformer stacks (which I'd never even heard of). If I remember correctly, I gave up on Haskell for a month or so after the intimidation that kind of page introduces. Chris has done an amazing job here of cleaning up content and making it approachable by new users. I think that should be the main purpose of the wiki. If you want to have some documentation that no one else can edit, you can put it on your own site. That's what I've done for Yesod, and appears to be the approach of most of the other actively developed projects out there. It's true that in such a large reworking as Chris has undertaken there will be some accidental miscategorizations, but the alternate you mention (contacting each author before moving an article) is simply untenable: it's difficult to track people down sometimes, it takes a long time to get a response, etc. I'd much rather have a very clean looking wiki page that's missing a few packages than the jumble of confusion we had before hand. Michael _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
