Re: throw away module namespace
Neil Bowers writes: You could put the modules in Acme::, which is another way of saying “you can’t rely on this in any way”. For example if you think the module is going to be Yak::Shave, you’d create Acme::Yak::Shave. If the name settles down, then you can release a non Acme version. Then down the road you can delete the Acme:: version. Some good suggestions in this thread, including from Neil, but the above strikes me as an abuse of Acme::. If I encounter a module in Acme:: I expect it to be a genuine silly module, not a work-in-progress of a serious module. If everybody starts putting unfinished serious modules in Acme, it makes it harder to find the fun! Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2
Re: throw away module namespace
All the suggestions so far are bang on -- I just have one more: prepan.org is a great place to post your module and get early feedback on it!
Paging Andreas König… [was: throw away module namespace]
* Chris Marshall devel.chm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 17:35]: I thought I read somewhere that there is a way to have a non-comittal CPAN module in the sense that there was a namespace that *would* allow one to delete a module rather than having it in perpetuity? IIRC there was a change to PAUSE recently in which uploading a dev release will no longer lay claim to an as-yet-unclaimed namespace. Unfortunately I am not having any luck finding the relevant postings to confirm or deny exactly what changed. But if that is the case then you could just upload every release as a development release until you have settled the namespace question. -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: throw away module namespace
Thanks! I appreciate all the suggestions. --Chris On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Karen Etheridge ka...@froods.org wrote: All the suggestions so far are bang on -- I just have one more: prepan.org is a great place to post your module and get early feedback on it!
throw away module namespace
All- I'm working on some new module development and I would like to make the progress available via CPAN and for testing, I don't want to start claiming package namespaces until things settle down. I thought I read somewhere that there is a way to have a non-comittal CPAN module in the sense that there was a namespace that *would* allow one to delete a module rather than having it in perpetuity? Else, any recommendations on how to accomplish the goal of not locking in the namespaces until the organization of the various components settle down? Thanks in advance, Chris P.S. This is for PDL3 and POGL2 development
Re: throw away module namespace
On 14-12-12 11:33 AM, Chris Marshall wrote: Else, any recommendations on how to accomplish the goal of not locking in the namespaces until the organization of the various components settle down? Just throwing ideas: an alternative would be to have your module lives on GitHub, and use the fact that cpanm can also install modules directly from there: cpanm git://github.com/plack/Plack.git@devel Of course, it means the distro won't be tested by CPANTesters, but you could set up Travis to tide you over. Joy, `/anick
Re: throw away module namespace
Hi Chris, I'm working on some new module development and I would like to make the progress available via CPAN and for testing, I don't want to start claiming package namespaces until things settle down. I thought I read somewhere that there is a way to have a non-comittal CPAN module in the sense that there was a namespace that *would* allow one to delete a module rather than having it in perpetuity? Some suggestions: You could just create the module(s) in whatever namespace you think is right now, and mark it very clearly as alpha quality with anything and everything up for change. You could note it in the abstract and in the first paragraph of the DESCRIPTION. There is nothing to stop you deleting that module down the road, other than not wanting to pull the rug from under anyone. You could do all releases as developer releases. These will still be tested by CPAN Testers, but the fact that it’s a developer release further sends a message. The downside is that developer releases don’t appear on your author page on MetaCPAN, and are ‘invisible’ to the toolchain / ecosystem in various ways. You could put the modules in Acme::, which is another way of saying “you can’t rely on this in any way”. For example if you think the module is going to be Yak::Shave, you’d create Acme::Yak::Shave. If the name settles down, then you can release a non Acme version. Then down the road you can delete the Acme:: version. Neil
Re: throw away module namespace
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:33:58 +0100, Chris Marshall devel.chm...@gmail.com wrote: All- I'm working on some new module development and I would like to make the progress available via CPAN and for testing, I don't want to start claiming package namespaces until things settle down. I thought I read somewhere that there is a way to have a non-comittal CPAN module in the sense that there was a namespace that *would* allow one to delete a module rather than having it in perpetuity? Else, any recommendations on how to accomplish the goal of not locking in the namespaces until the organization of the various components settle down? Thanks in advance, Chris P.S. This is for PDL3 and POGL2 development That's a miscommunication because there is a module name registration mechanism that nobody ever uses. Honestly, either put it in CHM-PDL3, or even better, just leave it on github. Or are you looking for cpantesters results? I think you can also just upload it with -TRIAL in the dist filename and most of CPAN will disregard it as a dev version. You can check in #distzilla, #cpantesters and #toolchain to get information on these issues. -- With regards, Christian Walde
