develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2017

Re: [perl #130467] Default perl builds to not include . in @INC(default_inc_excludes_dot)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Sawyer X
February 13, 2017 12:33
Re: [perl #130467] Default perl builds to not include . in @INC(default_inc_excludes_dot)
Message ID:

On 02/13/2017 12:57 PM, Graham Knop wrote:
> I have to second Kent here.  "Toolchain" as an entity is #toolchain,
> Perl-Toolchain-Gang, and the various mailing lists.  The discussion
> there around this certainly hasn't been extensive.  And I personally
> said that I wasn't comfortable with the inclusion of
> inc::Module::Install.

"Extensive" is admittedly far from the best description here, but the
essence of my comment (which was completely missed in order to make
claims of "it's all politics", which I strongly object to) is that we
have indeed raised *with* toolchain (both as individuals, as well as in
tickets, as well as in mailing lists, as well as on IRC - both to
individuals and in the main channel) this topic several times. Various
fixes had been suggested. No one is *happy* with the situation and the
any of the possible solutions, but the tone was "it seems toolchain has
reached a suggestion, and I support it".

Importantly enough, Kent's position is not "We need a bit more time on
this". His position, as stated in another email, is to make this change
at a "glacial" speed (quoting Kent), which means that no amount of
discussion that results in less than at least 2 additional releases for
this would be considered "enough time". This is besides my point
entirely and I have no intention of continuing such a conversation.

My point remains that I am willing to accept toolchain's position,
having reviewed several suggestions (so far at least three different
options I can count). I have previous made it abundantly clear on the
channel and directly to Leon T. that I do not have a specific solution I
want in mind, only for toolchain to reach to one which makes sense.

I *do not* want to muddle in the exact words used. Please accept my
undying apology for using the word "exhaustive". Now let's move on from
that word and please reflect on the main point of my position: If this
is what toolchain found acceptable, I support that.

That is all.

> There has been an increasing number of things that were discussed in
> private but only brought to the list as "this is the conclusion."  I
> don't think that's really appropriate.  Discussing things offline or
> in other private places is obviously fine, but the results should be
> brought to the list as arguments, not conclusions.

p5p has made it clear that it defers to toolchain for making a decision
on how best to treat CPAN on this issue. Toolchain has taken under it
the role of... the toolchain, and unless the desired solution receives
an objection from p5p, it will be accepted.

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