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 15, 2017 10:32
Re: [perl #130467] Default perl builds to not include . in @INC(default_inc_excludes_dot)
Message ID:

On 02/15/2017 11:00 AM, Graham Knop wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Kent Fredric <> wrote:
>> On 15 February 2017 at 09:10, Todd Rinaldo via RT
>> <> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> We could consider the idea of a fortnightly, monthly, or bimonthly
>> formal meeting online somewhere.
>> As long as sufficient advance warning of said meeting is advertised to
>> enough channels, and with sufficient calls for agenda items, and
>> sufficient advance notice of agenda items, in conjunction with
>> archived copies of formal meeting logs and log summaries ("outcomes"),
>> it could be useful.
>> As I imagine that as long as we had them regularly scheduled and at a
>> well defined time, people who had vested interest in participation
>> could factor it into their scheduling if they're not able to keep on
>> top of all the things we do in an informal manner.
>> This would also double as a kind of transparency provider for people
>> outside the echo-chamber, as the logs and summaries would be something
>> 3rd parties/vendors/LWN/etc could cite, whereas the overall nature of
>> toolchain at present is mostly "secret" if you're not part of the
>> constant IRC conversation. ( Of which a lot of is not relevant to
>> outsiders, and is merely dealing with specific and localised problems,
>> not wider ones )
> I'm not sure if frequent scheduled meetings are really appropriate for
> this.  It isn't often that something with such cross cutting concerns
> comes up.  Most things driving changes in toolchain are isolated to
> the individual components, so I feel like meetings would not be well
> attended.  And that would end up being even more isolating than the
> status quo of IRC being the closest we have to a focal point.
> We definitely should do better in terms of visibility and
> accessibility of toolchain concerns.  We have a ton of mailing lists,
> IRC, and various issue trackers, but there isn't a good common venue
> for concerns like might be discussed at the Toolchain Summit.  The
> cpan.workers mailing list would probably be the most appropriate place
> for discussion, but it has few subscribers.  If I had to pick a place
> for that kind of discussion right now, it might be the GitHub
> toolchain-site issue tracker
> (  It
> hasn't been used that way, but maybe it could be.
> I think the scheduling of the Toolchain Summit is working against us
> as well.  Being so close to the blead freeze and stable release makes
> it hard for P5P to react to toolchain changes, and for toolchain to
> react to changes in blead.

I think Kent and Graham are raising important issues here. Moving the
Toolchain Summit earlier on (definitely before any kind of freeze would
be valuable), having more transparency and communication is useful, and
official meetings can help as well. I think meetings don't have to be an
automated schedule thing but can be based solely on "Is there something
important to discuss". But having them is a very good idea.

I would like to raise one more issue that Todd and myself have observed
and discussed: Toolchain lacks a person who is the one to contact when
something comes up. If an issue is raised, who's on point? Who leads the
effort? The reporter? The "lucky" person on IRC who read it first? The
first to reply? The person with the commit bit? The person with the
PAUSE rights? Who decides this? I would be happy if there was one (or
even more than one) direct person to contact and lead (or delegate
leading) an action plan to resolve a given issue. Todd's experience
seemed (both from the outside, and from the lists, and from the tickets,
and from IRC) to be running around a bit trying to figure out who says
"Yes" or "No" on something.

I would be happy if this is one thing toolchain changes as well, to make
it easier for us all to coordinate efforts.

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