A. Pagaltzis wrote: >> What did you intend to gain by merging the TAP::Parser list >> into the TAP list? > > Well, as long as the discussions about TAP remain firmly on the > TAP list, that might be OK. If the TAP::Parser list deals purely > with implementation details that are truly irrelevant to TAP per > se, maybe they shoud stay separate. But the volume of discussion > might not be high enough to sustain multiple lists, even if the > topical split is correct, and having discussions about details of > TAP implementation in several different language on the same TAP > list might be healthy for the protocol. > > I see this mistake made in lots of messageboards on the web, > where people eagerly set up a hundred forums for specific topics, > and then none of them gets any traffic. It’s better to throw it > all together at first, and split the discussion only when the > volume necessitates it.
What's happened in the past is the TAP::Parser folks find an ambiguity in the protocol and then they ask on perl-qa. Granted this was before there was a tap-parser list, but I expect this to continue. I don't know if you've looked at the TAP::Parser list archives but its mostly commit messages. What would be useful is in digging out Ovid's numerous questions for clarification a few months ago on perl-qa about TAP and fixing up the TAP spec based on the discussions therein.
