Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Re: Whither p5p?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Russ Allbery
Date:
July 24, 2000 18:07
Subject:
Re: Whither p5p?
Message ID:
ylhf9frpaj.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
Chip Salzenberg <chip@valinux.com> writes:
> According to Russ Allbery:
>> (Well, actually they have two lists, gcc and gcc-patches.
> (Don't forget gcc-bugs.)
gcc-bugs is a special case; in a lot of ways, it's closer to the
equivalent of comp.lang.perl.misc. Although I suppose there's also the
gcc help newsgroup.
In any case, you can follow gcc development entirely without ever reading
gcc-bugs, as any discussion of any relevance to future development is
moved to the main list or the patches list as people work on it. That's
not a bad way of handling bugs; it might be worth considering similarly
directing perlbug traffic to a separate mailing list and just making sure
people move the resulting discussions to the main list as appropriate.
Managing bugs and bug reports is generally a very hard problem. I've yet
to see a solution that doesn't have its problems.
> 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?
These are both good points.
The C library and the C compiler are discussed independently and this
generally works. Can the Perl library and the Perl interpreter similarly
be discussed independently? The Perl library in this case would be the
set of modules that come with Perl. This seems to make some sense to me
and to also be a fairly useful partition of the traffic.
The standardization of C and the implementation are discussed separately.
Is it possible to do this with Perl? Can discussions of syntax changes or
additions be usefully discussed separate from the core implementation?
Hm, there, probably not. That strikes me as a pretty artificial
distinction for Perl.
> 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.
Note that for most projects it's rare to see it need quite that level of
intervention; a generally worded message aimed at the whole thread asking
people to please knock it off seems to normally be sufficient.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next