Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2020
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Leon Timmermans
Date:
June 27, 2020 00:15
Subject:
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID:
CAHhgV8hS3ouuf7U6uETYB6jum0g3hVN5_pdmshqU3+10PgZjoA@mail.gmail.com
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:58 PM Tom Ryder via perl5-porters
<perl5-porters@perl.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:49:30PM +0300, Sawyer X wrote:
> >I apologize for not sharing this news earlier. We have been working on
> >this plan for a very long time. p5p is a public mailing list, and we
> >needed to manage the communication around this. Despite not being
> >public, many people worked on it.
>
> First-time poster here.
>
> I think not having discussed this in public risks setting a really bad
> precedent. I had been taking a break from lurking on perl5-porters, so
> when the news was announced on perl.com, I assumed it had been being
> discussed on here and that I'd simply missed it, and was very surprised
> to find this announcement. Can you please elaborate on "we needed to
> manage the communication around this"?
>
> There was even a coincidental opportunity to discuss it openly back in
> mid-May, and at that point, your responses seemed to imply that this
> *wasn't* already being considered, despite your assertion that this has
> been in the works well before that time:
>
> <http://nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/257448>
>
> Could you please explain this in more detail? Thank you.
There are many things in this thread that merit response (and in due
time I might), but this one does stick out for me.
Yes, it is unusual to say the least that this list itself had to learn
about this from a TPF press announcement. Clearly p5p is supposed to
be the place where all these matters are discussed, and I think it's
rather unfortunate that it was not used as such in this case.
And to be honest, it was a rather annoying process behind the scenes
as well. It was largely a spy game of figuring out who was in the know
and who not; and one of the main consequences of that was none of us
knew what most other people were thinking or especially why because
there wasn't any unified place that included everyone; this stifled
actual discussion.
All of that is particularly unfortunate because, as far as I
understand, it's the intention to act really soon. As Karl pointed out
blead is still closed, and I understand from the CiC grapevine(!) that
the plan is to have an RC in about 2 months, and until 7.0 nothing
else gets in. How come we have a schedule when we don't even have a
roadmap? When so many things are unknown? When 5.32 is entirely
unprepared to be the last perl5? (it doesn't even install a
/usr/bin/perl5, let alone other things that would facilitate
cohabitation) We are woefully ill-prepared for this at this stage (the
fact that much of my information could be wrong shows just how little
information is public at the moment).
I think it is not prudent to hurry this process. Currently we haven't
formed a consensus on anything because we haven't even had the chance
to do so. Opening up blead and committing to releasing a 5.34 just
like Karen already suggested would give us that breathing space.
And most importantly, it allows us to bring the discussion back to p5p
where it belongs; to take well-informed decisions and to experiment
with what is and is not possible without undue time pressure.
Because right now it feels like we're strapped to a rocket with 10
seconds to lift-off, and I didn't sign up for that.
Leon
Leon
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next