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 15:41
Subject:
Re: the mystery of the undef upstreams
Message ID:
51CC5D07.3070200@cpan.org
On 06/27/2013 05:32 PM, Karen Etheridge 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".
>
> Why shouldn't all upstream-cpan modules in core have this status?

Because some are sufficiently close to perl guts that it makes sense to 
do the development as part of the perl core and then just sync to CPAN 
occasionally. But I think that's not the part of the status that you 
were concerned about...

> A module being part of core has a higher expectation of stability, so the
> obligations on the author are higher (so if the author cannot fulfill them
> in whatever circumstance, others must have the ability to step in as
> needed).  IMHO.
>
> (It should also work the same way for the reverse situation --
> upstream-blead modules that have seen changes should have those changes
> released to the CPAN in a timely fashion, by whoever is available to push
> those changes, unless perhaps the change is irrelevant to other versions of
> Perl. Again, IMHO.)

... agreed. I think it's mostly a historical matter of "we didn't use to 
tell people this when we took their modules into core, so we can't just 
adopt the policy without talking to everyone 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