Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2010
I really don't understand the dynamics of p5p. As I recall there were lots of discussions on the question what companies really need in regards of perl. Especially when the backward compatibility and deprecation issues were discussed. It seemed that not many companies were involved. Even if people employed by companies were involved that was not obvious (to me). If I understand correctly if some company would come and say we would like feature XYZ to be implemented in perl. Even if there was a consensus in p5p that feature XYZ is good there was no way for the company to actually get to XYZ. Unless it gets lucky and one of the p5p members thinks that XYZ is interesting enough for him to work on in his spare time. There would be no one who would be ready to implement it for money or p5p would not like the idea of someone being paid for that. So it seems p5p wants to get feedback from companies but then says we won't actually do anything with that feedback. That does not sound good. What did I misunderstand? Would it make any difference if you knew that the company paid TPF for some generic idea of "ongoing perl development"? Not paid directly for the implementation of the thing but that it could be later allocated either as bug bounty, as a larger grant like the one of Dave Mitchell or even for some CPAN related grant? Would that make it more likely that someone will implement XYZ? regards GaborThread Previous | Thread Next