Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. -- Johan
RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and CPAN)
much deleted As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves. Speaking of which... apologies in advance for cross-posting this, but I wanted to get the largest audience possible... I won't do it again. At least not in the forseeable future.. ;-) Ed RFC 362 --- =head1 TITLE The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive. =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Edward S. Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 19 Feb 2001 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 362 Version: 1 Status: Developing =head1 ABSTRACT The RFC process should not have had an artificial deadline; it should be an adaptive process that should last the entire development cycle of perl6 and perhaps after. =head1 DESCRIPTION I did a brief audit of all of the RFC's, and wheras they were a good start, they are hardly the end-all-be-all for perl6. There were gaps in functionality, a variance in the quality of the RFC's, and not enough emphasis on implementation. In addition, the discussion on the list did not seem to wend its way back into the RFC's themselves. Mark Dominus went so far to post a critique of the entire process: http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html and to conclude that the whole "RFC's process" was pretty much a waste of time for the quality of RFC's produced. Well, that's one view - but it neglects to recognize: =item 1. that without an RFC process in place, old ideas and discussions will rehash themselves on mailing lists ad nauseum. =item 2. that RFC's are a good starting point for people unfamiliar with with discussions/issues on the mailing list. =item 3. that RFC's are a good starting point for documentation. =item 4. that this is perl's first attempt at organizing ideas like this. Hence, we are newbies at this and are bound to make mistakes the first time round. However, there is one aspect in which I agree with him. That, as it stands, the RFCs are incomplete, lack encorporation of discussion, and seem to be 'out of touch' with the rest of the RFCs (to some extent). But that just points out to me the validity of point #4 above; we are new at this. We would get better as we go along. In addition, right now (as of February), I get the sense on the mailing lists that people don't really know what to do next. 'Wait for Larry' seems to be the order of the day, and we have been waiting for a while. Instead, I think that the doors to the RFCs should be re-opened, and that they should be bulletproofed. The next four RFCs suggest methods on how to improve the RFC process and the quality of RFCs: RFC 363 - Anyone posting a new RFC should have read all of the existing RFCs first. RFC 364 - There should be a web interface for people to interactively comment on RFCs. RFC 365 - There should be a rating system for RFCs. RFC 366 - There should be a culling system for RFCs, a way to distinguish quickly between withdrawn RFCs and RFCs in process. (ps -- no, I haven't written these yet. But if this RFC is acted upon, I reserve those numbers in advance. ;-)) =head1 IMPLEMENTATION Not really an implementation thing, more of a philosophy and process. =head1 REFERENCES http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/perl6rfc.html http://www.perl.com/pub/2000/11/jarkko.html
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? -- Johan -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Same here. Testers? -- H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://www.amsterdam.pm.org/) using perl-5.005.03, 5.6.0, 5.6.1, 5.7.1 623 on HP-UX 10.20 11.00, AIX 4.2 AIX 4.3, WinNT 4, Win2K pro WinCE 2.11 often with Tk800.022 /| DBD-Unify ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/perl/CPAN/authors/id/H/HM/HMBRAND/
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Same here. Testers? perl-builders? Or to be more whimsical: perl-night-shift perl-night-build It probably needs a name that'll both indicate its role and avoid confusion with 'porters' (who do most of the 'building' to the untrained eye). Tim.
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily buildand smoke test
At 15:45 + 2001.02.19, Tim Bunce wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Same here. Testers? perl-builders? Or to be more whimsical: perl-night-shift perl-night-build It probably needs a name that'll both indicate its role and avoid confusion with 'porters' (who do most of the 'building' to the untrained eye). I dunno; I dislike smoking, but I like the idea of "smoking-camels" or something. :) -- Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
RE: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
I agree with Johan... Fabio. -Original Message- From: Johan Vromans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. -- Johan
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Same here. Testers? perl-builders? I vote for perl-builders !ENTITY Vadim REALLIFE "St.Petersburg, Russia" Vadim;
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:50:04AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote: At 15:45 + 2001.02.19, Tim Bunce wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Same here. Testers? perl-builders? Or to be more whimsical: perl-night-shift perl-night-build It probably needs a name that'll both indicate its role and avoid confusion with 'porters' (who do most of the 'building' to the untrained eye). I dunno; I dislike smoking, but I like the idea of "smoking-camels" or something. :) Umm, I recall something from my geography lessons about nomadic tribes smoking camel dung. I can't remember now if it was on the fire or in the mouth (yeach). Anyway... perl-dung perl-droppings Umm, maybe not. Er... perl-smoke-trail (thinking of the night-by-night progress, kind'a) I dunno. I'm off... Tim.
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
jezz, this is nutso. the term smokers that schwern chose refers to smoking code as in testing it to see if it blows up in a blaze of flame and smoke. in the hardware world powering up a box or power supply for the first time is known as a smoke test (you don't want to see any smoke then). the name has nothing to do with tobacco or human smoking. so drop this thread. smokers is a fine name choice for a severe testbed system. does everyone get it? smoke is an established term in the testing world. uri -- Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.sysarch.com SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting The Perl Books Page --- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books The Best Search Engine on the Net -- http://www.northernlight.com
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
No. This is silly. End of discussion. PS I'm also an active non-smoker. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl6 Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is Job One
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
"H.Merijn Brand" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Because "PerlBuilder" is a commercial product. It's a poor quality competitor that I wouldn't recommend to anybody. If you put the words together like this, you'll create an accidental association. p
