wren ng thornton <[email protected]> writes:
> Ketil Malde wrote:
>> At least the way I see it, it is primarily *not* for use by
>> the author, and in fact most useful when the author is not around to
>> actively support his project.
> But if it's a wiki, wouldn't people be able to add changes themselves?
> Isn't that the idea behind wikis? Sure, the authors could lock down
> their wikis, but I don't get the feeling that many would.
(I'm sorry, you are correct of course, but I don't see how this applies
to any of what I wrote?)
> his mouth--- is that adding a Hackage wiki could place undue burden on
> the authors. If authors already have a wiki, then a Hackage wiki is
> just an extra place to check for feedback which will be prone to
> duplication and being out-of-date.
So if there's already a wiki, the author is "forced" to put a link on
the Hackage to his own Wiki (unless it is automated from links in the
.cabal file). If there isn't one, we get one.
> I understand that y'all think giving users a place for feedback is
> different than giving authors the tools to communicate with their
> users, but I don't think they're all that different.
This is all assuming there *is* an author.
I don't see your objections as very convincing - there is a ton of
projects, libraries etc on Hackage. How many even have home pages? Bug
trackers? That are updated?
And: how many discontinued or orphaned or deprecated projects have
updated home pages that point the user in a sensible direction?
>> E.g. my package that was used as an example, while (arguably) useful, is
>> way to small for me to bother with setting up a full site with web pages
>> or bug trackers, etc.
> So someone else should set them up for you?
No, someone else should set it up for *them*.
You can't seriously mean that an auto-generated wiki page puts a "burden"
on authors, while at the same time suggest that the authors have a duty
to provide all kinds of supporting infrastructure. For projects they
are no longer interested in?
> Either you want ways to communicate with your users or you don't.
The problem is when I don't.
>> Other packages are orphaned or see little interest from their author.
> That's a separate issue isn't it? Why not have an adopt-a-package
> program where the community determines which packages are orphaned and
> sets up and maintains wikis and other resources for them until a new
> maintainer can be found?
You know, this is a great idea! And a great starting point would be a
wiki, with a page for each library where information about it can
be recorded by users as and when it is discovered. :-)
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Haskell-Cafe mailing list