Greetings all,
I volunteered to take over the chairship from Michael for the next
two weeks, until the RFC period closes, so I thought I would try to start
wrapping things up. Below is my understanding, based on rereading pretty
much the entire qa archive, of what topics are settled, which are open,
and what the status of the open ones is. Could everyone please think
about the following two questions:
1) Did I miss anything?
2) How are we going to reach consensus on the open issues in the
next two weeks?
OPEN ITEMS:
Note: Not all of these have RFCs associated with them. I would simply
like to form a list consensus of how we want to address them.
1) Pod parsers:
Marek Rouchal and Barry Slaymaker are working on two separate POD
parsers. Marek's uses a DOM model, Barry's uses an event-based model.
There is ongoing debate about which is better based on: RAM usage, disk
usage, speed, general power. This hasn't been discussed in a while; is
there any further progress, and is there anything that either Marek or
Barry could use from the community?
2) JAPHs
Generally a good idea as regression tests, but not necessarily
useful as benchmarks, since there are no extant JAPHs written in Perl6
(obviously). Is there more that needs to be discussed on this? It felt
to me as though no real consensus was reached on whether or not to use
them.
3) Indexing documentation
As far as I can tell from skimming the RFC archive, we never
submitted an RFC on the idea of putting indexing hints into your POD. Do
we want to do this?
4) RFC 11 (Examples encoded with =also for|begin|end POD commands) is
overdue to be either frozen or retracted. (I mentioned this in my last
email)
5) RFC 182 (Jart -- Just Another Regression Test) is overdue to be either
frozen or retracted. (I mentioned this in my last email)
6) RFC 183 (=for testing, embedded tests) is overdue to be either frozen
or retracted. (I mentioned this in my last email)
CLOSED ITEMS:
(Being marked as "closed" is a subjective thing...does anyone
still want to discuss these?)
1) Warnings on by default:
Tom C is strongly against this. Response seemed generally
negative, and there has been no discussion in the last 10 days.
2) Bug tracking software
Suggestions for Bugzilla, bugs.perl.org. Bugs.perl.org sounds
like a big win and there seemed to be plenty of support for it.
3) Coverage tools
Suggested tools: GCT, gcov, Pure Coverage (commercial). The
final comment in the thread was that gcov seems to do everything we need.
Is everyone happy with this?
Dave
