Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2009
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:15:50PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> Nicholas Clark wrote:
>>> Dual life modules aren't (yet) eligible, unless the maintainer wants to join
>>> the scheme. For the rest of the document, "dual life modules" refers to
>>> modules whose maintainers are not involved.
>
> ^^that definition^^
>
>>> Bugs reported to core but found to be in dual life modules are only eligible
>>> for the first $25, and the second $25 if they are duplicates, or already have
>>> a TODO test in place.
>>>
>>> ie NO MONEY CAN BE PAID OUT for code to be committed against dual life
>>> modules, because we don't control the codebase.
>
> ^^applies here^^
>
>> Awww. I was going to code myself a new car.
>
> I don't object to that, and I'm sure car manufactures don't object either.
I was implying that I can write a bunch of bugs in MakeMaker and then get paid
to "fix" them. This came up in a Dilbert cartoon (that I can't find) a while ago.
There's a conflict of interest there. I don't know how much we have to
practically worry about it. Some language about "in good faith" should be
sufficient.
> The reason for explicitly wanting to exclude dual life modules where the
> maintainer isn't involved is that the rules for claiming include having
> the code committed.
Yep, I've struggled with this before. Either you do what you're doing, make
sure the maintainer is on board, or you commit to maintaining a forked version
of their module. It depends a lot on which, CPAN or perl, is considered to be
upstream.
> There are enough core committers, and other people generally involved, that
> it's possible to find (at least) two other people with sufficient technical
> background to adjudicate if someone's patch is suspect. I think it can be
> made to work, and be seen to be working, even if the bug, test and patch are
> all created by the same person, and that person is one of the judges.
>
> For the toolchain modules, for example, I'm not sure that there are
> sufficient knowledgeable people to make this work. But if we think there are,
> and the maintainers want to opt in and participate, it's good.
Consider this me opting in MakeMaker and Test::More. Toolchain modules are
precisely where tangible love energy (ie. $money$) will do a lot of good.
All in all, +1 with unicorn sparkles!
--
170. Not allowed to "defect" to OPFOR during training missions.
-- The 213 Things Skippy Is No Longer Allowed To Do In The U.S. Army
http://skippyslist.com/list/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next