On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:59:10PM -0400, Kirrily Robert wrote:
> I like this idea. The only question is how we get things moved into
> deprecated/ ...
A lot of modules get deprecated without being abandoned. For example,
I'd deprecate Test.pm if there was a formal mechanism. A lot of the
old pre-DBI modules (sybperl, etc...) are still actively owned and
maintained.
> I don't think we can deprecate modules without their
> authors' consent, unless the author is unresponsive to the point where
> we can consider the module "abandoned".
Like anything else, you take over maintenance. Your maintenance
consists of moving it into the deprecated branch.
> On the other hand, if Perl 6 modules are going into a perl6/ directory
> or something, that will (eventually) have the effect of deprecating
> everything that's not in there.
That's different. The Perl 5/Perl 6 CPAN split is because they're
effectively two different languages. We'll still need a
CPAN/perl6/deprecated/ because there will be a need to deprecate Perl
6 modules, eventually (where eventually is sooner than you think).
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
I am not one of those stupid moron who don't know what I am doing. I know about
FDA. FDA raids hundreds of small businesses every year that deal with
alternative medicine or therapy. They take away your computer, seize your
$200,000 inventory, and drive your company totally out of business in no time
if they ever approach you.
--Alex Chiu, Immortality Guy
