Hi,
First the related URLs:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?pbp_module_recommendation_comm
entary
and
http://cpanratings.perl.org/user/dandv
I wonder who created that page on perlfoundation.org? While it claims to be
the community best practices it even lists Module::Build as
I wonder who created that page on perlfoundation.org?
It's a wiki. You don't have to wonder:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?action=revision_list;page_name=pbp_module_recommendation_commentary
While it claims to be
the community best practices it even lists Module::Build as
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 07:11:12PM +0300, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
http://cpanratings.perl.org/user/dandv
I wonder who created that page on perlfoundation.org? While it claims to be
the community best practices it even lists Module::Build as maybe I
think this page is mostly ridiculous.
What
# from Hans Dieter Pearcey
# on Wednesday 08 April 2009 09:20:
In particular, saying maybe for Module::Build seems pretty
reasonable to me, since M::B vs. M::I is the emacs vs. vi of
distribution installers, and the summary there is controversy, but
it's definitely better than EUMM is
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:20:20PM -0400, Hans Dieter Pearcey wrote:
and the summary there is controversy, but it's definitely better
than EUMM is certainly true.
Only for certain values of true. Whether it's actually better for
*users* is a rather controversial subject.
--
David Cantrell |
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 11:34:26AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Hans Dieter Pearcey
# on Wednesday 08 April 2009 09:20:
In particular, saying maybe for Module::Build seems pretty
reasonable to me, since M::B vs. M::I is the emacs vs. vi of
distribution installers, and the summary there
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Eric Wilhelm enoba...@gmail.com wrote:
If there has been any controversy, it's been about the fact that M::B
was the first tool to break from how we used to do it. This exposed
I'll add just my 2 cents to say that a good deal of the controversy
was hung up on
# from David Golden
# on Wednesday 08 April 2009 12:21:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Eric Wilhelm enoba...@gmail.com
wrote:
If there has been any controversy, it's been about the fact that
M::B was the first tool to break from how we used to do it. This
exposed
I'll add just my 2 cents
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:26:17PM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
You're saying there is a debate about whether stagnation is a good idea?
I'm missing the connection between stagnation and Module::Install, here.
Or were you talking only about EUMM?
In any case, the mere vitality of this thread
-Original Message-
From: Hans Dieter Pearcey [mailto:hdp.perl.module-auth...@weftsoar.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:36 PM
To: module-authors@perl.org
Subject: Re: a lot of controversy about Module::Build
In any case, the mere vitality of this thread indicates that saying
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl5/index.cgi?pbp_module_recommendation_commentary
I started that page, and various other folks have added to it. I think the
convention has been that if there's a strong yes or no and you disagree,
you change it to a
# from Hans Dieter Pearcey
# on Wednesday 08 April 2009 12:35:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:26:17PM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
You're saying there is a debate about whether stagnation is a good
idea?
I'm missing the connection between stagnation and Module::Install,
here. Or were you talking
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:55:44PM +0300, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
I think M::B has a clean and understandable interface while EU::MM is
archaic (yes I know I didn't say something new).
Any current argument about Perl installation tools is, as far as I can tell,
primarily a battle between
-Original Message-
From: Dave Rolsky [mailto:auta...@urth.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:01 PM
To: Burak Gürsoy
Cc: module-authors@perl.org
Subject: Re: PBP Module Recommendation Commentary and recent CPAN
ratings spammings
I started that page, and various other folks
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey
hdp.perl.module-auth...@weftsoar.net wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:55:44PM +0300, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
I think M::B has a clean and understandable interface while EU::MM is
archaic (yes I know I didn't say something new).
Any current
Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey
hdp.perl.module-auth...@weftsoar.net
mailto:hdp.perl.module-auth...@weftsoar.net wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:55:44PM +0300, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
I think M::B has a clean and understandable interface while
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:36 AM, sawyer x xsawy...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like a good module to me. I know I could have used it a few weeks
ago.
If so, is this set of modules aptly named?
- Does it use a standard CPAN module for email sending?
- What does it use for formating to web?
If
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Dave Rolsky [mailto:auta...@urth.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:01 PM
To: Burak Gürsoy
Cc: module-authors@perl.org
Subject: Re: PBP Module Recommendation Commentary and recent CPAN
ratings spammings
I started
* On Wed, Apr 08 2009, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
OK, the intention is good but the location (perlfoundation.org) of
that page is not that good maybe, since someone flooded CPAN Ratings
with a reference to that page.
So? If you haven't learned to take things you read on the Internet with
a grain of
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Rockway [mailto:j...@jrock.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:13 AM
To: Burak Gürsoy
Cc: 'Dave Rolsky'; module-authors@perl.org
Subject: Re: PBP Module Recommendation Commentary and recent CPAN
ratings spammings
So? If you haven't learned to
-Original Message-
From: Dave Rolsky [mailto:auta...@urth.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:07 AM
To: module-authors@perl.org
Subject: RE: PBP Module Recommendation Commentary and recent CPAN
ratings spammings
So because someone assumes that a _wiki_ hosted at
* On Wed, Apr 08 2009, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
Maybe you should learn to read first before replying anything.
Maybe you should learn to write before replying anything?
:)
Seriously, though, do we really need to have a personal-attack-war?
Let's make fun of Python instead!
Regards,
Jonathan
IMHO, maybe a guidelines statement on the Ratings website would help. In
general, I think one should comment on competing modules within the
context of inline POD, and authors of such modules should avoid rating the
competition on this service.
One of my favorite examples of a well-written See
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from David Cantrell
# on Wednesday 08 April 2009 12:06:
As I've said before, this is silly. It's a tool, so either it works
or it doesn't. We can't really have controversy about whether it
works or how it works.
Despite your saying that we can't, we do. There is
I hope you guys don't mind if I interject...
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
That depends on who one is. ?If you're writing specifically for people
who keep their toolchain and perl religiously up-to-date,
There's nothing religious about it. You upgrade, it works better.
That's a
# from David Cantrell
# on Wednesday 08 April 2009 16:17:
Dissenters are certainly free to hold their opinions without reason,
but I would rather they not inflict those irrationalities on others
as advice.
What you would rather has no bearing on what *is*.
And your belief that those who
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:11 -0800, Arthur Corliss
corl...@digitalmages.com wrote:
I hope you guys don't mind if I interject...
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
That depends on who one is. If you're writing specifically for people
who keep their toolchain and perl religiously
--As of April 8, 2009 4:49:56 PM -0700, Eric Wilhelm is alleged to have
said:
But, anyway, is it a problem we really need to be inflicting on new Perl
users? Do they have to care if somebody might be running 5.8.8
somewhere? With 5.10.0 out for well over a year now?
--As for the rest, it
--As of April 8, 2009 7:58:33 PM -0500, Dave Rolsky is alleged to have said:
I, as a module author providing you a free product, don't have to give a
damn. Realistically, authors give some amount of damn, but maybe not a
full I'll support Perl 5.004 for the poor slobs using ancient Red Hat
29 matches
Mail list logo
