Ahh that is much better than my initial attempt! Safe Haskell directories added.
On 15 December 2012 00:46, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
Thanks to David for making a start. I have re-done the page based on his
work.
Thanks to David for making a start. I have re-done the page based on his work.
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Contributors
Please look! I have begun with a statement about what being an owner means;
please help refine it.
Also I'm sure I have missed out areas that should be
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 01:46:42PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Please look! I have begun with a statement about what being an owner
means; please help refine it.
Perhaps add something like:
It does not mean that the owner can make decisions that the
community disagrees with.
Done. I think we still want the email addresses but I've suggested ccing
ghc-devs.
Incidentally when will ghc-devs go live?
S
| -Original Message-
| From: cvs-ghc-boun...@haskell.org [mailto:cvs-ghc-boun...@haskell.org]
| On Behalf Of Ian Lynagh
| Sent: 14 December 2012 15:06
| To:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:13:18PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
Incidentally when will ghc-devs go live?
I don't think there's any urgency to the changeover, so I think I'll
leave it until January, when I'll have time to fix any problems that
might arise.
Thanks
Ian
So I had a go at updating the wiki page to reflect ownership / tsar
status / maintainers.
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Contributors
This page will probably need to change when reach a conclusion of how
we want to frame this responsibility (i.e., owners, maintainers,
tsars).
The list
David Terei davidte...@gmail.com:
So I had a go at updating the wiki page to reflect ownership / tsar
status / maintainers.
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Contributors
This page will probably need to change when reach a conclusion of how
we want to frame this responsibility
On 12 December 2012 16:08, Manuel M T Chakravarty c...@cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
David Terei davidte...@gmail.com:
So I had a go at updating the wiki page to reflect ownership / tsar
status / maintainers.
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Contributors
This page will probably need to
Ian Lynagh i...@well-typed.com:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:32:05PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
(Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the lines
that Ben suggests. If it works well it would
a) spread the load
b) broaden a
On 09/12/2012, at 10:53 PM, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
Ian Lynagh i...@well-typed.com:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:32:05PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
(Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the lines
that Ben suggests. If
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 01:49:32PM -0800, David Terei wrote:
I think that sounds too involved. How many maintainers would we really
be looking at at this point? I think only around 5 - 10 really. So a
single file in the root seems easiest.
A wiki page feels like a more appropriate place to me,
(Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the lines
that Ben suggests. If it works well it would
a) spread the load
b) broaden a genuine sense of ownership
c) because of (a) and (b), perhaps encourage more people to participate
What
On Dec 6, 2012 4:39 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
(Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the
lines that Ben suggests. If it works well it would
a) spread the load
b) broaden a genuine sense of ownership
On 06/12/12 15:08, Johan Tibell wrote:
On Dec 6, 2012 4:39 AM, Simon Peyton-Jones simo...@microsoft.com
mailto:simo...@microsoft.com wrote:
(Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the
lines that Ben suggests. If it works well it
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:32:05PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
(Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the lines
that Ben suggests. If it works well it would
a) spread the load
b) broaden a genuine sense of ownership
c)
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ian Lynagh i...@well-typed.com wrote:
Perhaps we could have maintainers instead?
If maintenance can be defined on a per-directory level we can put a
MAINTAINERS file in listing maintainers for a directory and all its
subdirectories. For example,
I think that sounds too involved. How many maintainers would we really
be looking at at this point? I think only around 5 - 10 really. So a
single file in the root seems easiest.
The other concern is some components of GHC are all over the place.
I'm also the maintainer for Safe Haskell and that
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:49 PM, David Terei davidte...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that sounds too involved. How many maintainers would we really
be looking at at this point? I think only around 5 - 10 really. So a
single file in the root seems easiest.
The other concern is some components of
On 07/12/2012, at 3:32 AM, Ian Lynagh wrote:
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:32:05PM +, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
(Narrowing to cvs-ghc for now.)
Speaking for myself, I would welcome a code-ownership model along the lines
that Ben suggests. If it works well it would
a) spread the load
| owner is a very strong word: I think other projects have had problems
| where e.g. owners have found themselves without time to deal with
| patches submitted, but have been unwilling to let anyone else touch
| their code.
|
| Perhaps we could have maintainers instead?
I like owner exactly
20 matches
Mail list logo
