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 16, 2017 11:46
Re: [perl #130467] Default perl builds to not include . in @INC(default_inc_excludes_dot)
Message ID:

On 02/15/2017 01:19 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 15 February 2017 at 22:32, Sawyer X <> wrote:
>> 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.
> My reasons for this idea stem more or less from your next comment and
> how it plays out with the reality of being slightly more anarchic in
> toolchain.
> Basically, /because/ there is no central authority, some sort of
> broadcast system to give interested parties fair warning that
> "important discussion detailing X will happen, everyone who cares is
> encouraged to be there"
> Instead of relying on them being omnipresent and detecting it by
> accident. ( Such notices could be spread to quite a few networks on
> existing .MLs and pull in outsiders who aren't usually idling in
> #toolchain )
> But I won't force the idea, it just seems like something I'd expect to
> happen already due to the size we are.

My perspective on this is Whatever Works. You're in a better position
than I to determine what works. :)

>> 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.
> [...]
> We should probably re-hash this stuff as a new P5P thread though.

I agree.

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