On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+d...@rabbit.us>
> I currently do not see a clear mechanism by which this effort could now
> reach the CPAN index.
> I myself can no longer ship this myself ( as explained previously ), and
> reasons to believe that this work will be scrapped by the "new
I understand if you feel like you don't want to ship another release. It
would be helpful if we could go through your last update and understand if
there is still outstanding work you feel you could deliver without
>> - Review, fixups, and final API-fication of the transaction subsystem
> Still at 90%. Missing several pieces around TxnScopeGuard.
As an outsider, this sounds like uncontroversial technical work. If you
don't feel like finishing this yourself, would you be able to articulate a
detailed "punch list" of what you think still needs to be done?
>> - Overhaul of the distbuild system, making it more approachable for
>> future maints
> Still at 70%. Given distbuilding is a very controversial topic, any
> changes before a new direction is in place are likely moot.
This sounds like work that a future maintainer can take on if they so
choose. Again, though, a list of that you think are missing might help,
particularly if it's around running the sort of stability checks you've
If you make it easy for successors to run those types of checks, there's a
good chance they will. If it's hard and if you're right that they won't be
as conscientious as you've been then they probably won't.
> > - Several new deprecation warnings, serving to set direction/provide
> > interlocks for future architects
> Still at 95%. Whether it is sensible to proceed also depends on the
> agreed upon direction.
Without knowing more details about what you were thinking to deprecate, I
can't assess this one. Do you think community successors wouldn't want to
deprecate these things? Or that they wouldn't want warnings? Something
David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC/GitHub: @xdg
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org