develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2021

Re: "platforms" and "support"

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Andy Dougherty
Date:
June 18, 2021 17:11
Subject:
Re: "platforms" and "support"
Message ID:
20210618171054.GA5166@dendrite.phys.lafayette.edu
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 09:55:45AM +0900, Yuki Kimoto wrote:
> 2021-6-17 22:31 Andy Dougherty <doughera@lafayette.edu> wrote:

> > Under Tier 4, the phrase
> >
> >     We won't accept patches (unless we're expecting/want it to move up)
> >
> > seems unnecessarily unfriendly.
> >
> >
>  The maintainers are a small number of volunteers, so if they do
> everything, they will burn out.

Yes, I am certainly familiar with that problem, but I don't think
that's of central importance in this context.

> If you think you need more support, why not look for a Perl-friendly
> sponsor?
> 
> For example, create a donation slot.

I appreciate you trying to trim unnecessary content, but in this case,
I think you trimmed so much that the original context is lost.  The very
next sentence was:

> > If a patch is simple and unobtrusive, I'd hope we would accept it.  

That is, I am envisioning a situation where a user has a patch (or
patches) they want to contribute to perl to support a new platform.
The user is not asking p5p volunteerrs to come up with the patch or
provide support, but simply accept an offered patch.

Yes, it is work to evaluate such a patch, but if we simply categorically
reject all new platforms, then how can any new system move from new/unknown
to known?  How does a new user bootstrap the process?  How do you get enough
other interested users to convince p5p that "we're expecting/want it to move up"?
Or, as I wrote in my original message:

> > How do you find other users of a new platform who might want to build
> > perl?  I'd hope perl itself could be that place.

I have no argument with the ideas that substantial complex patches need
to be evaluated thoughtfully, that such review is work, and that not
all such patches are appropriate.  I just think that the draft wording
is not welcoming, and out of step with Perl's traditional aspirations
of portability.

-- 
    Andy Dougherty		doughera@lafayette.edu

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About