develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2016

Re: [perl #129896] the maintainership/upstream situation of theCwd/File::Spec dist is very unclear

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Sawyer X
October 19, 2016 10:37
Re: [perl #129896] the maintainership/upstream situation of theCwd/File::Spec dist is very unclear
Message ID:
On 10/18/2016 02:45 PM, Christian Walde via RT wrote:
> [...]
> Assume an average, casual Perl developer, who's largely unaware of p5p and only uses Perl to write things, grabs stuff from CPAN, and if a module is broken, occasionally reports problems or maybe makes a patch. It's not a person from p5p, not anyone like you or me, or in fact anyone who'd be regular on IRC. All they have is:
> What exactly are they supposed to do, for this distribution, in order to, with a reasonable amount of success, and a reasonable amount of timeliness:
> - Report a bug and see it responded to and discussed in earnest?
> - Provide a patch and have it evaluated, integrated and released?
> With the information available there, such a person could only understand the answers to be:
> - Put a ticket in the RT queue or contact Ken (documented maintainer), or contact RJBS (last releaser).
> - Make a patch by downloading the latest release and creating a diff, then do the above.
> These answers though are wrong or misleading, since:
> - The documented maintainer has not done any maintenance in 8 years, so is unlikely to suddenly start again.
> - The current releaser only did so for an important hotfix, and is not doing active maintenance.
> - There are no links to any repository, resulting in any patches made to not account for the ~12 commits in blead since then.
> - In the past year only one ticket in the queue was touched by any of the listed maintainers and that was RJBS, so it's unlikely that any new tickets there at this point would receive much love.
> So right now, it looks like the answer to both of the questions above is:
> You can't do either.
> Is this correct?

I don't think you're wrong on this and I agree this is undesirable, to
say the least.

> If not, what are the correct answers and how can we get them documented in the dist and released?
> If it is correct, should it be changed and what can it realistically be changed to?

I think Jim raised a few possible solutions to this. Let's continue on
that front?

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About