Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-11-01 Thread David Golden
I asked on the private PAUSE admin list for other admins to add their opinion. A couple replied privately on that list or don't subscribe to CPAN workers. I have their permission to repost their comments here: >From Steffen Mueller: > I just read the cpan workers thread. My stance on this was

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-11-01 Thread H.Merijn Brand
On Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:44:12 +0100, Andreas Koenig wrote: > My reasoning tries to base on previous art first, the letter of the > Pause Operating Model (POM) second, and the intent of the POM third. > Since the intent can only be guessed, we would hope

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-11-01 Thread Andreas Koenig
My reasoning tries to base on previous art first, the letter of the Pause Operating Model (POM) second, and the intent of the POM third. Since the intent can only be guessed, we would hope that we do not need to resort to that. But then there is a fourth thing: reasoning what we as a community

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-10-30 Thread Kent Fredric
On 31 October 2017 at 15:54, David Golden wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis > wrote: >> >> >- Per the "explicit user confirmation", I think an explicit opt-in >> > must be present, not merely checking for overwriting via

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-10-30 Thread Aristotle Pagaltzis
* David Golden [2017-10-26 14:58]: > What do we think about this? Do we feel it falls under the 'safe > harbor' exception? As far as I can see, the mechanism described by Peter does not permit scenarios in which a user unwittingly gets their Perl installation screwed over by

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-10-27 Thread Todd Rinaldo
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Salve J Nilsen wrote: > > David Golden said: >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Chad Granum wrote: >> >>> I have a small objection to putting an alt module in a namespace other >>> than alt: It is less obvious. If I see

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-10-26 Thread Salve J Nilsen
David Golden said: On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Chad Granum wrote: I have a small objection to putting an alt module in a namespace other than alt: It is less obvious. If I see Alt::Thing I will simply know it will replace Thing. Consider, too, if someone else wants

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-10-26 Thread Chad Granum
I think ::Alt:: should be present in the name, though I do not care where. Why: * Conveys intent better * Probably easier for indexes to avoid having the alt-module listed as the newest version of the non-alt module * Cpan-testers can filter based on it. Essentially everything boils down to

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-10-26 Thread David Golden
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Chad Granum wrote: > I have a small objection to putting an alt module in a namespace other > than alt: It is less obvious. If I see Alt::Thing I will simply know it > will replace Thing. > Consider, too, if someone else wants to another

Re: Confirming PAUSE operating model safe harbor for Alt::* distributions

2017-10-26 Thread Chad Granum
I think alt modules are fine. I am fine with an env-var solution, BUT I am now ok with a single env var that allows any alt module in. I would recommend either a standard such as PERL_ALLOW_ALT_[MODULE_NAME], or PERL_ALLOW_ALT="Alt::One,Alt::2". I doubd anyone wants to allow arbitrary alt modules