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

Re: the mystery of the undef upstreams

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
David Golden
Date:
June 27, 2013 15:12
Subject:
Re: the mystery of the undef upstreams
Message ID:
CAOeq1c-zg--+7m+fkB8HhJQFD=zE4vJxhq8_MS0J+M+wL-e7mQ@mail.gmail.com
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Steffen Mueller <smueller@cpan.org> wrote:
> On top of all of this, I think we need another state. "cpan, but author has
> acknowledged that p5p reserve the right to apply bugfixes in blead and even
> temporarily take ownership of the namespace via PAUSE in dire circumstances
> to push fixes out if the author doesn't respond in a timely fashion or
> doesn't manage to find time himself".
>
> Which is really where we want things to go.

That's what "undef" has become, sort of.

I think it's a bad state -- one we should have as little of as possible.

When I was checking all the cpan & undef upstreams for v5.19.1, I saw
we have a number of fixes applied to blead that pending being applied
upstream.

We shouldn't be doing that.  We shouldn't be breaking cpan upstream
core modules on the blead branch.  Any core change that breaks a cpan
upstream module should sit on a branch until the module is fixed
upstream and merged back to blead.

An author who isn't timely should hand off to blead or find a co-maint
who can be timely.

David


--
David Golden <xdg@xdg.me>
Take back your inbox! → http://www.bunchmail.com/
Twitter/IRC: @xdg

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