Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Toolchain is an even looser collection of people than p5p; unlike p5p it's more of an archipelago of projects than a continent. Any kind of exhaustive discussion is difficult to achieve before the toolchain summit (formerly known as the QA Hackathon), and inconveniently that is scheduled later than ever this year (mid-May). The toolchain organizational infrastructure is not adapted to having to reach any conclusion with a deadline. I may have missed some of the discussion on IRC, but I haven't seen a discussion on a number of questions, including but not limited to: * Would we want to include this forever? If not, until when? * Should this thing warn? * What are the consequences of this inc::Module::Install being different from the CPAN one? What if they converged? * What to do about other modules that now break? * What does this mean for our policy on including/ejecting modules? Some of these questions are toolchain, some p5p, some both. All of them need answers though. LeonThread Previous | Thread Next