2000-09-07-17:11:50 Dan Sugalski:
> Perl 5's development issues have nothing to do with the code 
> repository -- [...]

That's certainly possible, but since the reason we're gathered here
together working on trying to launch perl6 is a collective belief
that perl5 has become unmaintainable for further development, citing
perl5 as an example of how a given tool is just what we need to be
using seems shaky at best. So I ask again: do any _other_ projects,
preferably ones that aren't regarded as procedural failures that
need re-inventing from scratch, used perforce? Or is perl5, whose
failure has brought us out today, its one poster project?

> [...] given how many branches are active, perforce seems to be a
> win.

Given that it's only available to people who happen to run supported
platforms, who are willing to run random binaries from untrustworthy
sources, _and_ that we're at the mercy of a private company for
bug-fixes and maintenance, it seems like it'd be more prudent to let
people who really like perforce feel free to use it themselves for
their private tracking, but to avoid wiring it into the heart of the
distributed development of perl6 as a whole.


PGP signature

Reply via email to