Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2013
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: @xdgThread Previous | Thread Next