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

Re: the mystery of the undef upstreams

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Steffen Mueller
Date:
June 27, 2013 15:17
Subject:
Re: the mystery of the undef upstreams
Message ID:
51CC5799.4010801@cpan.org
On 06/27/2013 05:11 PM, David Golden wrote:
> 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.

Should, should, should. I agree with all of the above. But it's just not 
reality and won't ever be.

We need to be able to get over being blocked by third parties. And that 
trumps not having fixes just in core by a mile.

In other words: Our skilled volunteer time is worth a LOT more than it's 
worth to spend on poking third parties for weeks or months. That doesn't 
mean we should default to applying to blead first.

--Steffen

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