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
Looks like an interesting library. Will it be able to read pixels from a
window at some point?
On 23 April 2013 06:02, Chris Wong wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the initial release of Robot!
>
> Robot lets you send fake keyboard and mouse events, just like its
> namesake in Java.
>
> Only X11
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'?"
14 matches
Mail list logo
