Hi Miles,
Thanks for raising this. I am in communicating with Rajesh offline to
try to make things clearer.
* New submitter created BZ's for packages in good faith but
without
being aware of the (currently non-existent?) Haskell packaging
guidelines.
Yes, well-intended I know. I hope he may still pick up some of them
again starting with a single package first though.
* Various borderline rude comments were made.
I agree the communication could have been better though he may not be
following comments in bz or the ml's closely.
* The BZ's were closed with extrordinary haste without giving
the
submitter a great deal of time to respond (I mean, maybe he's been
away on holiday for the last few days?).
I agree I would have preferred to keep them open a little longer. Not
sure how many packages were submitted. I think Tibbs marked them not
ready which would have been sufficient for now probably IMHO, but I
think Bryan had concerns about the quality of the packaging and choice
of libs.
Now, perhaps that's not how it really was, but I don't feel
particularly motivated to do work on any packages myself unless I'm
reasonably confident that I won't be on the receiving end of similar
(apparently) high-handed treatment.
I am sure if you follow the processes correctly you will not have many
problems. Feel free to ask here if you have any doubts about what you
want to package, etc.
* What in particular that guy did wrong.
No response in bz and not following submission process...
* What are the most important things for a package submitter to do
to
ensure a successful outcome.
If you follow the processes outlined on the wiki you can't go too wrong.
:) The coming Haskell Packaging Guidelines should help too: I hope
we cam get them submitted soon so we can avoid further ambiguities like
this.
Thanks, Jens