* Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-02 22:20]: > Can the cpan-testers please get a dedicated list that is not perl-qa?
So there is Perl-QA, TAPx-Dev (where I’ve been dragging my feet to subscribe), the IETF TAP list, the Module::Build and CPANPLUS lists, and now cpan-testers-discuss. I am sure I am missing a few more. Just how much further can we splinter the discussion? If I need to subscribe to 15 lists to get full coverage of all that is going on in a single area of the Perl world, is it any wonder that no one outside of Perl ever hears of anything that is going on in Perl? Is it any wonder at all that it is so hard for “normal” people, whatever that means to you, to keep up with what modules represent community state of the art? To the extent that we need to talk about rethinking CPAN? (Yes, the last one has more reasons. This is not an argument that CPAN is without flaws.) * Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-02 23:40]: > Also, as far as I know, CPAN Testers has never asked the > readers of the CPAN Testers or search.cpan.org "What would you > like us to do for you?" The features in CPAN Testers are 100% > self-created dogma. Seriously? First you say you want them to play in their own sandbox, then you say they’ve never asked anyone? This recalls to mind a trademark Linus rant I read a while ago. In that mail he was actively discouraging people from starting a special-interest mailing list for some kernel subsystem they were working on which didn’t look like he would be including it in his kernel tree anytime soon. His argument was that while creating little echo chambers may feel more comfortable to everyone (on all sides), it doesn’t help the quality of the end result. Staying in a place frequented by people with possibly contrary opinions or with extradisciplinary viewpoints is ultimately a better strategy. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
