Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2020
Re: Announcing Perl 7
From: Todd Rinaldo
July 3, 2020 19:19
Re: Announcing Perl 7
Message ID: F7D0AE45-13EE-4E47-AF9F-C6162C85B16A@cpanel.net
> On Jul 3, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Craig A. Berry <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:42 AM Sawyer X <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 6/30/20 5:50 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:54 PM Kent Fredric <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> the net result, whatever p5p does
>>> For the record, p5p has nothing to do with it. The public mailing
>>> list appears to have been carefully and intentionally excluded from
>>> the first few months of Perl 7 development,
>> I understand how this seems, but I want to try and explain this:
> Thanks for the reply. I think I already understand how you see the
> mailing list.
>> * p5p has a record of being a very unfruitful place for in-depth public
>> discussion which is not laser focused.
>> * Since the proposal is too large for p5p to properly evaluate - this
>> thread is strong evidence of it - we had discussed it within that group.
>> Now, I understand this seems like a no-starter and many think that any
>> such plan should go to p5p, but I disagree. p5p is not the developers
>> mailing list as it intends to be. In practice, it is a mailing list for
>> those interested in the development, which the developers are part of.
>> In short, it's difficult to engage in the way that the list - or some
>> people on the list - would like people to engage in. I do apologize I am
>> not able to keep up. I wish I could.
> However difficult it is to engage the mailing list (and I've been an
> observer of at least some of those difficulties for a couple of
> decades), it's never been considered optional. This is partly
> convention and tradition, but not just of the "we've always done it
> this way" type but more because there's never been an equally
> efficient (if messy) mechanism for providing transparency and keeping
> the "open" in open source. My reading of L<perlpolicy/GOVERNANCE> is
> that making major changes to Perl actually requires consulting p5p
> (what Larry calls the legislative branch).
From what I can intuit from Larry's SOTO 20 years ago, Perl 6 was not initially planned on the p5p mailing list either.
The most amusing part of the talk for me is when Larry said: "We intend to abandon the Perl 5 porter’s model of development, which demonstrably leads to a lot of talk but little action."