A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-18 23:43]: >> * Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-18 22:45]: >>> I volunteer to host it if necessary. >> That’s not a bad idea; a dedicated domain for TAP without any >> mention of Perl in the name is probably a good marketing move. >> I don’t mean that we need to ashamedly hide the fact that we’re >> Perlers, but I think it would be wise not to give people cues >> based on which they can quickly superficially dismiss TAP as >> irrelevant to their own work, if we want it to catch on. > > Oh, and it would be nice if the TAP::Parser list (or whatever the > tapx list is about) would be rolled back into the TAP list; I > didn’t know that list even existed until the recent crossposts, > and I think this sort of fragmentation is unwise.
Those two paragraphs would seem to contradict themselves. On the one hand we want a TAP list in which we can discuss the protocol independent of its implementation or Perl. Then its said to merge the discussion about the details of the TAP::Parser Perl implementation into the Perl and implementation independent TAP mailing list. Does not compute. What did you intend to gain by merging the TAP::Parser list into the TAP list?
