Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2017
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 11:37:47 -0800, LeonT wrote: > > 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. Yes I'm learning this the hard way. Is there any interest in changing this? Given the priorities put on the toolchain to maintain stability among other things. It's surprising to me there is no good forum to have a discussion more frequently than once a year. > 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? Given we're talking about ~3,700 dists on CPAN that would need to be patched and re-released, I have no expectation this is ever going to be fully solved. I could see some day deciding that the remaining 500 modules are unused or sufficiently broken that breaking their installer isn't the end of the world at which point we could take it out. > * Should this thing warn? That should be easy to do. See line 6 in the updated gist https://gist.github.com/toddr/a0d877645575df5615cff30fcaf379ad > * What are the consequences of this inc::Module::Install being different > from the CPAN one? What if they converged? This module is more a shim with re-produces what the installed Module::Install module already does. With the exception of the HIGHLY unlikely event that someone starts actively developing on M::I, I don't think there's any particular risk of divergence. > * What to do about other modules that now break? I think the breakage is low enough that we just submit patches and push for fixes. I have not gotten a final number but I think it's going to only be a couple of hundred once you remove M::I from the list. I am happy to get a solid number if that is the only outstanding hold out for actioning this ticket. > * What does this mean for our policy on including/ejecting modules? Given it's a shim, I don't think that's a major issue. We boot it out when we think enough of CPAN is fixed right? Prior to that it's not a big issue, is it? > Some of these questions are toolchain, some p5p, some both. All of them > need answers though. p5p is easy. It can be discussed here. I don't know how to get any sort of consensus from toolchain. However, if I understand your governance model, only Karen should really have a say in this given it is her module we're working around, right? /me ducks. Todd --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=130467Thread Previous | Thread Next