Re: Renaming the "QA Hackathon"?

On 04/20/2016 09:39 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: * Salve J Nilsen [2016-04-19 14:06]: Hm "Perl Ecosystem Summit"... I thought of that myself and ended up not proposing it because the Annual Perl Ecosystem Summit would be the APES. But maybe that is actually good? Well

Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

On 03/01/2016 10:14 PM, David Golden wrote: cpanm had --scan-deps, though it's now listed as deprecated. I didn't phrase my question correctly. What I am after is: Imagine you get a random checkout of some dist and/or extract a tarball. Aside from running `perl Makefile.PL` and visually

Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

I am currently aware of the Module::Install-specific targets of `make listdeps` (only what is needed to satisfy test/runtime prereqs) `make listalldeps` (everything the metadata knows about) There is the dzil alternative of: `dzil listdeps` (everything) `dzil listdeps

Why do we keep using META.json for stuff that has nothing to do with installation

Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a wider audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy workaround where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by unicode in META.json. Unicode that doesn't really serve any purpose for an

Re: TRIAL dists shipping today

passing on 5.6 again So... while this was frustrating, it's an example of the system working in that rather then carelessly shipping these and hoping for the best, I've been more methodical before release and hopefully these new TRIAL dists will be suitable for stable. My name is Peter

Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelines using CPAN and POD

On 05/06/2015 09:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: On 6 May 2015 at 19:26, Peter Rabbitson ribasu...@cpan.org mailto:ribasu...@cpan.org wrote: Sorry for the sidetrack I was actually hoping for naming feedback :) The names suggested seem amenable to me. The only real problem I still have

Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelines using CPAN and POD

On 05/06/2015 08:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: This is something that has bothered me for a while. We have a lot of standards and guiding principles, but a lot of it is all in our heads, wisdom one can only get by talking about it on toolchain, and/or breaking things and getting yelled at. ...

Re: Documenting best practices and the state of ToolChain guidelines using CPAN and POD

On 05/06/2015 02:19 PM, Neil Bowers wrote: I’ve parked it for the moment, because Gabor has said he’s working on a CPAN notification system that he’d like to add this feature to. Neil, it seems to me it is important to clarify if Gabor intends for his system to be fully and unconditionally

Language nit [ was: On the current Test::More-to-be ]

On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote: an overwhelming majority was content with how things were handled... I must admit a lapse of mine - until this morning I was embarrassingly unaware of the actual definition of the adjective 'content' [1]. I have been using it incorrectly to

Re: On the current Test::More-to-be

On 05/01/2015 11:23 AM, David Golden wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Peter Rabbitson ribasu...@cpan.org mailto:ribasu...@cpan.org wrote: On 04/30/2015 11:23 PM, David Golden wrote: It nonetheless implies (a) that few obstacles remain I am claiming exactly

Mischaracterization

Writing under a new thread, as this does not directly pertain to T::M. On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the current direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelming majority was content with how things were handled, thus the work is slated for continuation.

On the current Test::More-to-be

This is my (hopefully final) followup to the Test::More debacle. On April 16th I participated in a closed door discussion about the current direction of this bedrock module. An overwhelming majority was content with how things were handled, thus the work is slated for continuation. My

Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Am 01.06.2014 um 20:09 schrieb Peter Rabbitson rab...@rabbit.us: On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 05:59:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Am 01.06.2014 um 15:03 schrieb David Golden x...@xdg.me: The only thing specified

Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 05:59:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: Am 01.06.2014 um 15:03 schrieb David Golden x...@xdg.me: The only thing specified in the lancaster consensus is what must happen if that command-line argument is true. I think making a distinction between 0 and undefined