On 05/06/2015 09:32 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 19:26, Peter Rabbitson ribasu...@cpan.org
mailto:ribasu...@cpan.org wrote:
Sorry for the sidetrack
I was actually hoping for naming feedback :)
The names suggested seem amenable to me.
The only real problem I still have to
On Wednesday 06 May 2015 09:26:03 Peter Rabbitson wrote:
The toolchain is not the only thing that has a body of knowledge to be
documented.
Also, people who are not actually part of the toolchain gang do not
necessarily know that e.g. best practices for upstream module authors are in
any way
On 6 May 2015 at 19:26, Peter Rabbitson ribasu...@cpan.org wrote:
Sorry for the sidetrack
I was actually hoping for naming feedback :)
The names suggested seem amenable to me.
The only real problem I still have to resolve is what name we put
non-article-oriented things like The Lancaster
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
[ snip ]
Each of these standards though would be Living standards and would be
updated as need be to reflect current working practices, and so deprecation
of a document would only be a thing if the entire concept fell
+2 And further, when we have that notification thing that lets people know
they have people using their stuff, when their module reaches a critical
number of things depending on it, we should recommend they link to it in
their POD, assuming they want to follow it.
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:03
On 05/06/2015 08:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
This is something that has bothered me for a while.
We have a lot of standards and guiding principles, but a lot of it is
all in our heads, wisdom one can only get by talking about it on
toolchain, and/or breaking things and getting yelled at.
...
I’ve parked it for the moment, because Gabor has said he’s working on a CPAN
notification system that he’d like to add this feature to.
Neil, it seems to me it is important to clarify if Gabor intends for his
system to be fully and unconditionally open akin to metacpan, or is intended
as
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
And this creates substantial problems for discovery and recall, as well as
having a significant point-of-failure if any of the individuals maintaining
those auxiliary sites get eaten by a SIGBUS
People can't find the
On 05/06/2015 02:19 PM, Neil Bowers wrote:
I’ve parked it for the moment, because Gabor has said he’s working on
a CPAN notification system that he’d like to add this feature to.
Neil, it seems to me it is important to clarify if Gabor intends for his
system to be fully and unconditionally
In that vein, we need some sort of Canon set of documentations, written and
maintained by toolchain themselves, articulating how things /should/ be done
as far as toolchain are concerned, without any sort of requirement that
people adhere to it, unless they want to make toolchain happy.
+N
On 7 May 2015 at 02:46, H.Merijn Brand h.m.br...@xs4all.nl wrote:
How much I admire this effort (+1000 as you say from me as well), I
think a structured HTML doc that people can download and read or PDF
with index will reach a wider audience.
Generally, with HTML, if I want to read HTML, I
On 7 May 2015 at 02:28, David Golden x...@xdg.me wrote:
This is like the xkcd standards problem (https://xkcd.com/927/).
I was literally waiting with baited breath for that to be referenced as I
wrote the original email :D
Before charging off down the path of using CPAN as a CDN because it's
12 matches
Mail list logo
