2000-09-05-10:53:25 Dan Sugalski:
> >I don't think it's a good idea to build Perl6 development
> >infrastructure around non-free software.
> I don't think we should make decisions about the software we use
> for development based on political views. The decisions should be
> based on technical merit and general availability.

I think it's terribly, terribly depressing, even worrisome, to hear
someone in this locale implying that open source availability is a
purely political attribute, and not a technical one with a very
important and direct bearing on availability.

2000-09-06-10:51:35 Dan Sugalski:
> >Finally, most free software and open source projects have
> >standardized on CVS. Do we really have a compelling reason to go
> >against the standard?
> Perl 5 uses perforce, [...]

I thought one of the primary motivations for this investment of time
and effort here on the perl6-* lists was the problem that far too
few people can contribute to perl5 development. That being the case,
the claim that perl5 uses a tool doesn't qualify as a strong
argument in favour of that tool. Perhaps perl5's use of perforce
isn't a contributor to its problems that have us here working on a
rewrite. Could be. But are there any major open source projects
working on perforce that _aren't_ trying to re-invent their
development processes due to a perceived failure of same?


PGP signature

Reply via email to