develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from August 2009

Re: The plan for ext/ and dual-life modules

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Mark Mielke
Date:
August 30, 2009 16:29
Subject:
Re: The plan for ext/ and dual-life modules
Message ID:
4A9B0B3F.7030207@mark.mielke.cc
On 08/30/2009 05:52 PM, Sam Vilain wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
>    
>>> I think most of the criticism is due to the fact that submodules are
>>> not what people expect them to be. People tend to be deterred by the
>>> fact that every time you update a submodule you need to commit to the
>>> parent.
>>>
>>>        
>> That doesnt make me feel all warm and fuzzy frankly.
>>
>>      
> However, it does mirror current practice; development on modules
> generally continue separately and out of band to perl; and then you have
> commits which update the version in blead etc to the latest version of
> the module.

I think the "however" is soft. It's not just that it mirrors the current 
practice - but it is very likely the *right* practice.

Perl core should be controlled (i.e. choose to accept a later version of 
a dual-life module), and Perl core should be reproducible (a specific 
version of Perl core was based on a specific version of a dual-life module).

Having to commit is a requirement for this to occur. Submodules vs 
subtrees might behave a little differently on how the commit occurs 
(manual or automatic), but that a commit occurs is a *good* thing. There 
should be a stamp in history to show that a dual-life module was updated 
or reverted or whatever...

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke<mark@mielke.cc>


Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About