Thanks for the feedback, Michael.
I'm fairly much in agreement with all your points about the mailing list
options.
> + A more common SCM system (not darcs). SVN is popular and tolerable. Git is
> nice and fast (and with something like github forking and fixing things
> becomes
> more a community thing than just patches in an RT ticket).
This is a separate point, since we aren't suggesting changing any SCMs now, but
I'll still address it.
CGI::Application sees a trickle of updates and patches, so much so that I don't
think it matters what SCM the main project uses. If people just send a "diff"
against the latest release, that's likely fine. Most of the action is with
plugin development, and plugin authors are free to choose whichever SCM they
want. I think at least darcs, git and svn are in use.
Catalyst has an alternative model where lots of related projects share a
central code repo. That has some benefits, but a lot of even the plugins are
fairly mature at this point and are not seeing much active development. For
me, if we were considering changing anything here, this would be a very related
question: Do we move toward centeralizing several sub-projects under one SCM
with shared commit access, or keep going with the decentralized approach?
At this point, it seems like the decentralized approach is working reasonable
well,
but I would consider evaluating this again if there was another flurry of active
development.
Mark
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mark Stosberg Principal Developer
[email protected] Summersault, LLC
765-939-9301 ext 202 database driven websites
. . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . .
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
