On Wed, 06 May 2015 09:26:03 +0200, Peter Rabbitson <ribasu...@cpan.org> wrote:
> On 05/06/2015 08:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > This is something that has bothered me for a while. > > > > We have a lot of standards and guiding principles, but a lot of it is > > all in our heads, wisdom one can only get by talking about it on > > toolchain, and/or breaking things and getting yelled at. > > > > ... > > > > As such, I propose a very rudimentary idea: > > > > Toolchain > > > > This is the top namespace > > > > Toolchain::Standards > > First of all +1000 on the idea itself. I want to point out an > alternative to the naming, simply because I have been thinking about > something *very* similar for about 6 months now (and this email may in > fact be the thing that gets me rolling). > > The toolchain is not the only thing that has a body of knowledge to be > documented. All organizations have that. All individual projects have > that. And *individual authors* have things they would want to document. > Not because of vanity, but because it is much much much simpler to link > to a piece of text, instead of rehashing an argument for the 100th time. > > Therefore I am urging you to think broader and go for: > > Policy - short blurb what is this about > Policy::Org - short sub-blurb what is this about > Policy::Org::P5P - pumpkin maitaned > Policy::Org::Toolchain - joint maintainership > Policy::Project > Policy::Project::Moose > Policy::Project::DBIC > Policy::Author > Policy::Author::AUTARCH - explicitly reserved (and non-squatable, > PAUSE admins take action when needed) > Policy::Author::RIBASUSHI > > Sorry for the sidetrack One issue that bothers me is that *I* view CPAN as something to install from. Unlike many others, I still use commands like "man" and "perldoc" to read *installed* stuff. Works always, works everywhere (even when there is not connection to the wicked world outside). I share the sentiment David vented in another post: * Who is each piece of information for? * Where are they likely to look today? * Are there existing documents that can be fixed/expanded? If the proposed namespace is accepted, it is *unlikely* that that info will be locally available. Why on earth would some Linux distro include those documentation? Why would an end-user install it? How much I admire this effort (+1000 as you say from me as well), I think a structured HTML doc that people can download and read or PDF with index will reach a wider audience. Proof me wrong! Please! -- H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/ using perl5.00307 .. 5.21 porting perl5 on HP-UX, AIX, and openSUSE http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org/ http://qa.perl.org http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
pgp9afP0shCQU.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
