Front page | perl.cpan.workers |
Postings from March 2010
Hi Elaine, Elaine Ashton wrote: > On Mar 28, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Randy Kobes wrote: > Jarkko and I were talking about it this morning - as he's not in > favour of pruning - while trying to think of a way around the size > problem and he reminded me of the idea that, if I recall correctly > was Adreas' suggestion a while back, there be an A, B and C 'PAN' of > sorts where you could pull varying degrees of content - sort of > CPAN:Mini writ large. I don't think that idea ever got any traction > because it wouldn't really solve some of the issues for the major > upstream mirrors and the mechanics of deciding where to draw the > lines between them. I still think it's a good idea though. This sounds a bit like the CPAN -> backpan scheme but with some additional levels? > I do very much like Tim's proposal for giving old modules a push to > BackPAN since, with proper communication of the changes to the > authors along with a way to mark exceptions, this would rid CPAN of a > lot of cruft that should be on BackPan anyway. I'm not even going to throw in my considerable weight on this whole debate of pruning*. But if backpan became the "official" way to access old versions starting from yesterday's, wouldn't that mean: a) That the toolchain would have to be adapted to a tiered infrastructure (think of the indexes...) and more importantly: b) The backpan would have to be mirrored all over the place as well, thus pushing the problem to the next level? Best regards, Steffen * If you must know, I don't like the means but sympathize with the goals. PS: This isn't targeted at Elaine specifically, but can everybody please take a step back and relax? Please be civil.Thread Previous | Thread Next