On 11/9/15 10:34 AM, David Golden wrote: > Do you want to know what work would be deemed "acceptable" by > BinGOs/others? I think small, targeted fixes are likely to get applied > (and eventually shipped). By which I mean a PR with a test that > demonstrates a problem and a narrow fix that is easy to grok by reviewers.
Larger changes are certainly welcome, but given EUMM's position in the ecosystem, we have to be very careful when making them. > > Do you want to know whether the mohawk work will ever be revived? I > don't know but I suspect not -- or at least not in the form it was. It > was too invasive and too hard to review. I consider it a well > intentioned, but failed experiment. Given that the entire Perl > community already lives with EUMM's existing flaws, substantial changes > bring huge risk for uncertain benefit. I don't think this is accurate. The revert done for 7.08 was intended as a temporary measure until the issues introduced could be resolved. The master branch is still based of what was released in 7.06, and at this point, all of the known issues caused by 7.06 have been addressed. We will hopefully be getting back to releases from there soon. The problem with mohawk's work wasn't really that any given part of it was invasive. For the most part the changes were reasonable and not that large. But we accumulated a large number of changes into a single release, which made it hard to review as a whole.
