Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2014
Re: Roadmap/plan for Perl 5?
From: Ricardo Signes
September 4, 2014 15:55
Re: Roadmap/plan for Perl 5?
Message ID: 20140904155526.GA25905@cancer.codesimply.com
* sawyer x <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2014-09-03T08:00:48]
> I think we have a different definition of roadmap. I will concede that mine
> is ambiguous while yours isn't. Perhaps I should use a different word, like
> "plan" or "vision".
> To me, it represents the direction you want to take the project.
I think that there are many plans and visions for p5, and we have to resolve
how they will merge as they come to fruition. I have long kept track in my
head of what various people have said their plans are, but that's all.
I think that having those become easier to find and read sounds potentially
useful and certainly interesting. I'm not sure how I think one should go about
making that happen, but it sounds like you're interested in helping make that
happen. Let me know if you want input/help/whatever from me.
> I really want to contribute but I don't have an itch. I want to know where
> the project is going and to help it get there.
Yeah, I acknowledged that this was a problem. I think that if there is a place
where people have posted their plans, and you could easily skim through that
and see what looked interesting, it would be really helpful.
> I don't get it: why is it inherently wrong to have a direction? Why must
> success come by chance of something somehow making it, rather than a goal
> we know we want to achieve?
I never said it was. I said that the way that things happen in p5 development
didn't currently work like that. I also don't believe it can be made to work
like that, where someone who is not implementing features declares what the
next set of things to do are, and they get done.
> My idea is to do the reverse of "agreement on feature". My idea is
> agreement on direction. That direction can extrapolate into various
> features. Each can be discussed (and each person decides which discussion
> to join) and then some will get accepted and some won't. Perhaps some
> features will have multiple implementation attempts, and some of those will
> get attempted and some won't.
I really don't understand what this means in practical terms.
> "Fixing our so-called API" is a direction. It's an achievement. People can
> then come together who are interested in that, suggest a way to do it, and
> allow a discussion around that.
Yes. A number of people suggested it was something we needed to do. I posted
about this a few months ago to try to jump-start discussion. It didn't really
> And I do apologize if any of what I'm saying seems like ranting. I'm not
> trying to rant. I'm seriously suggesting having a vision and trying to
> formalize some kind of plan.
You are not ranting or anything like that.
> I think a project should have a vision.
It's important to have a plan and a vision before you break ground on your
massive new skyscraper. After it's inhabited and in heavy use, it is not
unreasonable for the vision to be "it remains standing and habitable, with
improvements made when the possibility becomes apparent."