Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
From: Chip Salzenberg
July 24, 2000 16:30
Message ID: 20000724160011.D6255@perlsupport.com
According to Russ Allbery:
> (Well, actually they have two lists, gcc and gcc-patches.
(Don't forget gcc-bugs.) But I think the analogy is badly flawed.
First, Perl covers a larger area of development than C++, let alone C.
P5p covers for Perl issues that gcc can usually punt to other mailing
lists, like libstdc++ and glibc.
Second, C and C++ have external definitions not debatable in the
context of gcc development. How would you feel if gcc mailing lists
were shared with the ANSI C and C++ committees?
(Mind you, I like language lawyering -- I read comp.std.c++ for fun,
and often refer to the ANSI C++ standard while programming. But
having language lawyering occupy the same list as practical patching
can lead to overwhelming volume.)
> I'm not sure why this didn't work with p5p; I think it may be
> related to the fact that Larry practically never did that and a few
> personality conflicts got out of control, and then once that happens
> it's very hard to ever get things back to a presumption of civility.
I agree. Just imagine the gcc list if, say: (1) Jason Merrill[*]
simply were unable to restrain himself from corrosive insults whenever
someone proposed a patch or extension that rubbed him the wrong way;
(2) RMS were still titular head of the project; and (3) RMS were not
interested in telling Jason to take a hike and making it stick.
> It's *got* to be possible for us to find some way of behaving the
I think the Project Manager post has the potential to give someone
(who isn't Larry) the moral authority to tell people to take a hike
unless/until they can behave civilly again.
[*] Name chosen at random. Jason's actually a nice guy, AFAIK.
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K