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
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
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
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
* 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo