On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 10:11:44AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > * New approaches to replication, such as git, don't have to be supported > > by existing mirror providers. A new set of cpan-git-mirror providers could > > emerge. > > > > * Any cpan-git-mirror provider running a cpan-git-server could be > > included in the list of mirrors used by existing installers. > > > > * Over time the number of cpan-git-mirror's and cpan-git-server's could > > grow and the number of traditional CPAN ftp/rsync mirrors could fall. > > The central thesis is correct, git provides a very simple, very > compact database that sorts things by version and by distribution. > The downside is CPAN doesn't really do things by distribution, so that > would have to be worked out. IMO this is a Good Thing that needs to > be done. > > See http://use.perl.org/~schwern/journal/40014 for gitpan's issues > with identifying distributions.
Umm, yes. That needs fixing. For distributions that contain unauthorised modules I think the cpan-git-mirror code should take the 'strict' approach: ignore the distro until the permissions have been corrected. It would be as if they hadn't been uploaded. The focus would then naturally move to smoothing the process of namespace ownership management. Tim.
