Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2018
On 1 Mar 2018 04:55, "Dan Book" <grinnz@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Leon Timmermans <fawaka@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:07 PM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > > But then we have to decide if they are competent. And if they ask and > > we decide they aren't then we are insulting someone who is trying to > > help. > > > > If the maint burden is low, then I think we should just take them into > > core. If people want to adopt MJD's non core modules then fine, but if > > we are going to impose restrictions on who can do the maintenance, > > including vetting them, we should just take them onto ourself. That > > way we guarantee enough maintainers and we dont risk insulting > > someone. > > I'd strongly prefer to have as little modules as possible > upstream=blead unless there's an inherent reason why it ought to be > kept close to core. That said, p5p having ownership over essential > core modules is generally useful (especially when maintainers are less > than responsive). > > Leon > Another issue with making them blead-upstream is that reporting bugs to rt.perl.org is categorically more difficult than with rt.cpan.org or github due to the consistent spamfilter issues over the past couple years. I am unable to report bugs from my dev machine (they are silently dropped for unknown reasons) and there is no web interface to do so. It's also less simple for users to look through all bugs related to that particular module. -Dan Maybe we should just get that fixed. YvesThread Previous | Thread Next