On 2 November 2011 01:08, Diego Souza wrote:
> The idea is simple: there are many different platforms that would be
> to expensive for one to support. So they ask the community for help,
> and then distribute the load amongst the perl community.
Duncan and co have been working towards something s
The perl community has something really interesting for quite long time:
http://wiki.cpantesters.org/wiki/HomePage
Or more specifically:
http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBI
The idea is simple: there are many different platforms that would be
to expensive for one to support. So they ask the co
Ross> A field in the .cabal file is just as available to bots as
Ross> a field on the package page.
Yes, absolutly. There are at least one easy solution for this problem :
having a server-side user model that is related to packages, or to
packages versions, indicating wich user is the maintainer
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Max Bolingbroke
wrote:
> On 1 November 2011 09:00, Ketil Malde wrote:
>> This is where it stranded the last time, IIRC. That sentiment makes me
>> a bit uneasy; so you are the official maintainer of a package on
>> Hackage, but you do not want to hear about it whe
On Nov 1, 2011 8:45 PM, "Daniel Díaz Casanueva"
wrote:
>
> Then, the mailing list seems to be an option. But then I will receive
mails for every package, and there is a lot of packages! Is not a lot of
mails this? There is another work around?
>
Nobody would read every build error for thousands o
Daniel Díaz Casanueva writes:
> How about to a new optional Cabal field like "mail-report"? (don't bother
> about this name, I chose it randomly)
>
> If a build failure happens, or there is some relevant information about your
> package, Hackage will send a mail to the direction specified in that
Then, the mailing list seems to be an option. But then I will receive mails
for every package, and there is a lot of packages! Is not a lot of mails
this? There is another work around?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.hask
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 08:24, Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2011-11-01 12:59 +0100, Daniel Díaz Casanueva wrote:
> > How about to a new optional Cabal field like "mail-report"? (don't bother
> > about this name, I chose it randomly)
>
> Doing anything like this in the .cabal file is a mistake, since th
On 2011-11-01 12:59 +0100, Daniel Díaz Casanueva wrote:
> How about to a new optional Cabal field like "mail-report"? (don't bother
> about this name, I chose it randomly)
>
> If a build failure happens, or there is some relevant information about
> your package, Hackage will send a mail to the di
How about to a new optional Cabal field like "mail-report"? (don't bother
about this name, I chose it randomly)
If a build failure happens, or there is some relevant information about
your package, Hackage will send a mail to the direction specified in that
field. A field which content will NOT ap
> On 1 November 2011 21:35, Ketil Malde wrote:
>> or even
>>
>> Maintainer: Ketil Malde -- email me if you
>> are human
> Though unless the hackage email bot is smart enough, this will result
> in a lot of unsendable emails...
But the bot is not a human, so that's what ketil wanted after all
On 1 November 2011 21:35, Ketil Malde wrote:
> or even
>
> Maintainer: Ketil Malde -- email me if you are
> human
Though unless the hackage email bot is smart enough, this will result
in a lot of unsendable emails...
--
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com
IvanMiljenovic.wordpres
Yitzchak Gale writes:
> I am just a little worried that if uploading to Hackage
> requires agreeing to unlimited uncontrollable
> spamming by a bot,
The bot would, of course, be implemented in Haskell. Anybody who still
worries about bugs, is free to implement a better one in Agda. :-)
> it m
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 06:14, Ketil Malde wrote:
> Max Bolingbroke writes:
>
> >> This is where it stranded the last time, IIRC. That sentiment makes me
> >> a bit uneasy; so you are the official maintainer of a package on
> >> Hackage, but you do not want to hear about it when it fails to comp
On 1 November 2011 10:14, Ketil Malde wrote:
> So, I'd *love* to get an email when my packages fail to build, but I will
> accept that other people have a more sensitive relationship with their
> inbox. (I assume that the people who raise this objection - Max
> and Yitzchak - belong in this categ
Max Bolingbroke writes:
>> This is where it stranded the last time, IIRC. That sentiment makes me
>> a bit uneasy; so you are the official maintainer of a package on
>> Hackage, but you do not want to hear about it when it fails to compile?
> Don't forget that some packages fail to compile on H
I wrote:
>> This would be nice. However, there would have to be
>> a way for it to be turned on and off by the author.
>> (Spam is not nice.)
Ketil Malde wrote:
> This is where it stranded the last time, IIRC. That sentiment makes me
> a bit uneasy; so you are the official maintainer of a package
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 09:43, Conrad Parker wrote:
> On 1 November 2011 03:43, Alexander Kjeldaas
> wrote:
> >
> > On 31 October 2011 17:22, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> >>
> >> Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
> >> > could [Hackage] have a feature where when a
> >> > working package breaks with a new versi
On 1 November 2011 09:00, Ketil Malde wrote:
> This is where it stranded the last time, IIRC. That sentiment makes me
> a bit uneasy; so you are the official maintainer of a package on
> Hackage, but you do not want to hear about it when it fails to compile?
Don't forget that some packages fail
On 1 November 2011 03:43, Alexander Kjeldaas
wrote:
>
> On 31 October 2011 17:22, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
>>
>> Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
>> > could [Hackage] have a feature where when a
>> > working package breaks with a new version of
>> > GHC the author is automatically e-mailed?
>>
>> This would
Yitzchak Gale writes:
> Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
>> could [Hackage] have a feature where when a
>> working package breaks with a new version of
>> GHC the author is automatically e-mailed?
>
> This would be nice. However, there would have to be
> a way for it to be turned on and off by the autho
On 31 October 2011 17:22, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
> > could [Hackage] have a feature where when a
> > working package breaks with a new version of
> > GHC the author is automatically e-mailed?
>
> This would be nice. However, there would have to be
> a way for it to be tu
Gregory Crosswhite wrote:
> could [Hackage] have a feature where when a
> working package breaks with a new version of
> GHC the author is automatically e-mailed?
This would be nice. However, there would have to be
a way for it to be turned on and off by the author.
(Spam is not nice.)
Thanks,
Yi
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Gregory Crosswhite
wrote:
> I have uploaded a number of small packages to Hackage that I no longer
> actively use so that I don't find out immediately when a new version of GHC
> has broken them. Since Hackage is going to the trouble of finding out when
> a packa
Hey everyone,
I have uploaded a number of small packages to Hackage that I no longer actively
use so that I don't find out immediately when a new version of GHC has broken
them. Since Hackage is going to the trouble of finding out when a package no
longer builds anyway, could it have a feature
25 matches
Mail list logo
