On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:14:03PM -0500, Chris wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Andy Lester wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 04:32:11PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > wrote:
> > > * Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-28 16:05]:
> > > > I thought I heard (or more probably read somewhere) that the
> > > > name was 6PAN?
> >
> > I don't think we need another CPAN at all. There's nothing wrong with
> > putting "require 6;" at the top of Makefile.PL and keeping everything in
> > one happy CPAN.
>
> That means CPAN is going to have to parse it, and keep a record of the
> data so it splits development trees. Module authors will probably
> have to maintain dual branches of code between p5 and p6 for at
> least one year. I doubt that everyone will be able to jump on the perl6
> bandwagon right away.
>
None of that sounds unpossible... but what is compelling about
not keeping 5/6 modules separate to begin with? I would tend to want
an author to have verified their module is '6 compatible' before using it
in the first place. Keeping ver 6 modules separate seems like the simplest
solution to that problem.
Austin
