develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2013

Re: Getting new version of Pod::Simple updated in core (and fixingupstreammodules in general)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
James E Keenan
Date:
February 25, 2013 11:48
Subject:
Re: Getting new version of Pod::Simple updated in core (and fixingupstreammodules in general)
Message ID:
20130225114832.12829.qmail@lists-nntp.develooper.com
On 2/25/13 2:22 AM, demerphq wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am wondering what the status is with getting Pod::Simple updated in perl.
>
> As far as I can tell some changes to Pod::Simple caused some
> downstream breakage and we have not upgraded because of it.
>
> I understand Ricardo was looking into fixing one of the breakages, in
> which case all the better.
>
> However, we have been waiting for those downstream modules to fix
> their stuff for many months.
>
> I don't think is a reasonable amount of time.
>
> IMO at this point we should just update Pod::Simple and let the
> maintainers start seeing test fails in their cpan matrixes.
>
> I actually think the are grounds to rethink our policies about dual
> lifed modules. It is very very hard to maintain development velocity
> when you have to wait weeks to get upstream packages fixed and are
> blocked from merging only because of upstream modules not applying
> patches that took minutes to write. It is even more difficult when you
> have to wait on modules that are downstream of upstream to patch their
> stuff too. IMO This is not good for Perl. Developer velocity is
> important, being slammed to a stop because of upstream issues is
> really frustrating.
>
> I think our policy should be: push patches upstream. Wait a week. If a
> new release is not forthcoming create a core only release of the
> module.
>
> I also think that our policy should be that if you have a module in
> core you have to give more than one core committer a commit bit so
> that they can roll releases if needed.
>
> This waiting forever to get minor test patches applied to upstream is
> really frustrating.
>
> Yves
>

While I haven't been following these issues closely, my general sense is 
that we do have a problem in this area and so discussion is warranted.

But, could you clarify what you mean by "upstream" and "downstream" 
here?  I thought the only situation we had to worry about was "upstream 
is 'cpan'".  I'm not sure when or where we have to worry about "downstream".

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan

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