On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:42:12PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> As a community you seem to want prioritization of stability. Then
> why aren't you clamoring for a team that *mostly* leans towards
> stability *naturally*? I do not understand why settle for an
> illusion of a working group fully controlled by someone who
> demonstrably optimizes, and went on record intending to continue
> optimizing for progress for the sake of progress.
I disagree that I would "fully control" such a team, but it's clear that
you think less of our co-maints than I do.
Anybody who has genuine concerns that I would optimise for "progress for the
sake of progress" as opposed to the "impressive record of reliability" from
very welcome to join the outstanding questions thread.
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue
Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org