Hi Elaine,
Elaine Ashton wrote:
On Mar 28, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Randy Kobes wrote:
Jarkko and I were talking about it this morning - as he's not in
favour of pruning - while trying to think of a way around the size
problem and he reminded me of the idea that, if I recall correctly
was Adreas' suggestion a while back, there be an A, B and C 'PAN' of
sorts where you could pull varying degrees of content - sort of
CPAN:Mini writ large. I don't think that idea ever got any traction
because it wouldn't really solve some of the issues for the major
upstream mirrors and the mechanics of deciding where to draw the
lines between them. I still think it's a good idea though.
This sounds a bit like the CPAN -> backpan scheme but with some
additional levels?
I do very much like Tim's proposal for giving old modules a push to
BackPAN since, with proper communication of the changes to the
authors along with a way to mark exceptions, this would rid CPAN of a
lot of cruft that should be on BackPan anyway.
I'm not even going to throw in my considerable weight on this whole
debate of pruning*. But if backpan became the "official" way to access
old versions starting from yesterday's, wouldn't that mean:
a) That the toolchain would have to be adapted to a tiered
infrastructure (think of the indexes...)
and more importantly:
b) The backpan would have to be mirrored all over the place as well,
thus pushing the problem to the next level?
Best regards,
Steffen
* If you must know, I don't like the means but sympathize with the goals.
PS: This isn't targeted at Elaine specifically, but can everybody please
take a step back and relax? Please be civil.
