search

actions / setup-haskell

Set up your GitHub Actions workflow with a specific version of Haskell (GHC and Cabal)
MIT License
71 stars 30 forks source link

Mark as unmaintained #56

Closed andymckay closed 3 years ago

andymckay commented 4 years ago

Add in a notice about the upcoming lack of intended maintenance on this repository. Sadly we haven't got the people to maintain this repository and we'd like to make it clear to visitors to this repository about it's state. This process of marking it unmaintained only affects future updates. The Action will still continue work as it is in old workflows.

Once this lands, we'll also Archive this repository.

hazelweakly commented 4 years ago

When it's marked as unmaintained, can the README be updated to point to haskell-ci/setup as the maintained fork?

andymckay commented 4 years ago

When it's marked as unmaintained, can the README be updated to point to haskell-ci/setup as the maintained fork?

Sure 👍🏾 Added that in now.

Anton-Latukha commented 3 years ago

You always can:

  1. Include active people into maintenance.
  2. Repository can be transferred. So there is no need in forks, and users do not even notice that group owner changed, and would not need to do the migration.
  3. Merge the changes faster, since they already made :), indeed if there was even a banner, I've spent some time yesterday, figuring out what is the error of 1.1, today - it does not even produce a syndrome.
chshersh commented 3 years ago

@jared-w Is the plan for haskell-ci/setup to become the official GitHub Action for Haskell instead of actions/setup-haskell? If yes, will all issues and PRs be transferred to it?

hazelweakly commented 3 years ago

@chshersh Right now things are still slightly up in the air. Long story short is "essentially, yes, but with haskell being the org, not haskell-CI.

Originally, haskell-CI was where @hvr put the first fork of setup-actions and that's where I rewrote it. Now that it's in a place to become the official one, I thought about where it would make most sense for that to be and realized it really should be in the haskell github org rather than a haskell-CI one. This has the advantage of being in the "official" organization as well as the advantage of having an org with multiple members in it instead of just one.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to get a haskell/actions repo created yet. I've pinged someone about it and have been added to the org, but now I need to go through the list of owners and see if someone has some free time to create the repo and set me as the maintainer/committer for it.

The final url, I'm hoping, will be haskell/actions/setup which will open up the possibility of having more haskell-based github actions in a more conveniently discoverable place. I apologize for being a bit in the dark about this but I didn't want to prematurely announce things until I had at least been able to get into contact with a few people.

andymckay commented 3 years ago

Thanks for the ideas @Anton-Latukha

You always can:

1. Include active people into maintenance.

Unfortunately we can't give them rights to this repo because of certain organisational requirements.

2. Repository can be transferred. So there is no need in forks, and users do not even notice that group owner changed, and would not need to do the migration.

We could, except Actions do not recognise redirects. Also if we did there is a concern we'd be changing security boundaries significantly from a GitHub provided Action to a non-GitHub provided Action.

hazelweakly commented 3 years ago

@andymckay would it be possible to switch the README to point to haskell/actions instead of haskell-CI/setup? After reflection, it made more sense to migrate the action over to the official Haskell organization rather than keep it in the haskell-ci org (which historically has not had the best discoverability).

Sorry for the extra trouble, but I'd really appreciate it :)

andymckay commented 3 years ago

Done