Responses inline

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Richard Hainsworth
<rnhainswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've seen a couple of references to modules that no longer work; it's
> inevitable with a new language.
>
> There is a balance between having respect for / protecting the original
> developer, and also keeping a useful module up to date when the original
> developer moves on / gets bored / dies / falls in love with someone else.
>
> Developers see a protocol for adding a module to the ecosystem. I think it
> would be effective for the perl6 community to have a visible protocol for
> dealing with 'abandoned' modules. If it's visible at the start, it is
> difficult to complain about arbitrary decisions later.

Anyone should be able to release a module with the same name,
it will just have a different :auth<>
So anyone can fix it and upload it, if there isn't a licence problem.

That leaves a few other problems. For one the old unmaintained module
would still
be there, and still be the newest version from that :auth<>.
We would probably need a procedure to get it de-listed.

Basically I think we are in a slightly unique situation, and we may just have
to wait and see where the chips fall for some of it.

> I came across the following, which I thought made the balance in a
> reasonable way:
>
> https://learn.getgrav.org/advanced/grav-development#abandoned-resource-protocol
>
> Richard Hainsworth

Some of that can be re-used, and it is very similar to the procedure
for Perl 5 modules.

Reply via email to