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