Is Paczesiowa still maintaining it?

[adinapoli]

Hello there,

I'm a long time hsenv user, and I've always found it to be a life saver against cabal's hell.
I'm a little upset to see that apparently despite a lot of active development from forks, the main repo is slightly outdated now and rarely updated (last merge 4 mo ago).

In a moment where we have ghc 7.6.1 and cabal 1.16 out, is very important to keep the right pace to be aligned with these new technologies.
I obviously understand that OSS is the product of passion and free time, so @Paczesiowa have all the reasons in the world to not have time to updated it, what I'm wondering if he can give write access to the repo also to someone else so that the project can be updated :)

(Maybe create a new organisation so you can selectively entitle people to read/write access?)

Good luck!
A.

[tmhedberg]

I've had open pull requests for months, with no response. I don't think he's working on this anymore.

I've merged a couple of pull requests on my own fork (tmhedberg/hsenv). If you feel like making some changes of your own, feel free to submit them there. I don't mind serving as a de facto interim maintainer unless and until someone more permanent steps up, or Paczesiowa returns.

[adinapoli]

Ok, cool, also because I have my own "patched up" version of hsenv and having efforts so scattered among forks is wasteful :)
Cheers,
A.

[bitc]

I recommend that you reopen this issue so that people will see this and more discussion can take place.

[nh2]

On maintainer loss I recommend making a "hsenv" organization of people that maintain hsenv collectively and review patches together.

It would be nice to see hsenv advance!

[tmhedberg]

Using an organization isn't a bad idea, but there are several important questions to consider. How do you decide who gets invited to the organization? How would decisions be made/consensus be reached on design issues? Those sorts of issues have to be decided up front, and with no established leader, it's not obvious who would have the final say.

Having several separate forks isn't really that bad from a development point of view. Somebody could just create a fork that integrates the best bits of all of the others. If it's good enough, then the community will naturally congregate around that fork as the new canonical version of the project. The advantage to this over a centralized Github organization is that it's completely merit based, and doesn't require a leaderless group of people to agree on anything before the work gets done. If a substantial community eventually forms around a particular fork, then potentially it could be turned into an organization at that point to enable multiple people to contribute.

Those are just my thoughts. I also want to see this project continue to develop, however it ends up being done. :)

[obscaenvs]

I've had to use your version, tmhedberg at https://github.com/tmhedberg/hsenv because of issues in this one (Paczesiowa version). I hope some canonical version sees the light of day soon...

[tmhedberg]

Yeah, it's not a great situation. I can at least vouch that my fork works well on GHC 7.6, and thanks to patches from other people, should be working fine on 7.4 as well. So using it as a stopgap until something better comes along should be perfectly fine (and please report any problems you have to me, as I'd like to fix them).

[obscaenvs]

Sure. No problems as of one day of usage :)

[rlpowell]

I also am going to use the tmhedberg version; if that become the not-optimal version, please say so here.

-Robin

[cheecheeo]

Since this is a Haskell package, the Hackage maintainer (whether organization or personal repo) http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hsenv should also be considered. @tmhedberg I'm glad to know that when I 'cabal install hsenv' I'm getting an active fork of the project.