Hi Dana,
I've mostly ignored all this but I will step in briefly.
I am the author of a few modules on CPAN. None of them are major.
[...]
I most vehemently resent anyone
deciding that my contributions are not worth keeping around.
[...] What if one day the CGI::Untaint::Test module gets
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:07:59AM -0800, Linda W wrote:
The person who I responded clearly stated that unless I was willing to
pay to make it his highest priority, then my patches would be given lowest
priority.
No I didn't.
I merely pointed out how you could, if it were important enough
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 07:20:22AM -0500, Lincoln A Baxter wrote:
Or, here is another idea (which I have not seen broached), that could be
completely automated fairly easily: Mark those modules as unsupported
and open to co-maintainer assignment
This already exists. Go to:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:14:09PM -0800, Linda W wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:09:35AM -0800, Linda W wrote:
Don't have to touch their code,... but if we want CPAN to be able to
be relied upon.. it's can't have unaddressed bugs for months (let alone a
year or
Jonathan Yu wrote:
I try to stay out of these discussions (*cough* flame wars), but here
goes...
The relationship between CPAN and the Developer is bi-directional, no
doubt.
As an organization, CPAN can, as it chooses, decide to do what you are
suggesting, remove software or boot a
# from Linda W
# on Monday 28 November 2011 10:07:
In that case, such modules on CPAN are worse than DEAD WEIGHT, they
don't just take up space. People, like you say, come to CPAN for
'modules that install in a straight forward manner'. If the module
fails in that regard, then the module
David Cantrell wrote:
... Should be a problem for someone who ALWAYS has something more
important to do than CPAN.
I wonder where that always came from. Certainly not from me.
Basic logic applied to your statements:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:09:35AM -0800,
Mustn't get sucked in, mustn't get sucked in ...
oh bugger.
In that case, such modules on CPAN are worse than DEAD WEIGHT, they don't
just take up space. People, like you say, come to CPAN for 'modules that
install in a straight forward manner'. If the module fails in that
regard, then
I've mostly ignored all this but I will step in briefly.
I am the author of a few modules on CPAN. None of them are major. The
dependency of one on another module which has been broken for years means
that I get frequent e-mail that it fails its tests. There's nothing wrong
with -my- module and if
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:17 AM, dhu...@hudes.org wrote:
I've mostly ignored all this but I will step in briefly.
I am the author of a few modules on CPAN. None of them are major.
Other stuff of mine is in the alpha, proof-of-concept stage as a set.
I have various sysadmin tools for DNS
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:09:35AM -0800, Linda W wrote:
Don't have to touch their code,... but if we want CPAN to be able to
be relied upon.. it's can't have unaddressed bugs for months (let alone a
year or more)...
I promise to address bug reports quickly if you
I try to stay out of these discussions (*cough* flame wars), but here
goes...
The relationship between CPAN and the Developer is bi-directional, no doubt.
As an organization, CPAN can, as it chooses, decide to do what you are
suggesting, remove software or boot a Developer. However, I do not
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Linda W perl-didd...@tlinx.org wrote:
Steffen Mueller wrote:
On 11/21/2011 09:58 AM, Neil Bowers wrote:
Maybe instead of just this Covenant, we have a number of Ownership /
Maintenance statements, one of which is the one I proposed, but
another of which
Steffen Mueller wrote:
On 11/21/2011 09:58 AM, Neil Bowers wrote:
Maybe instead of just this Covenant, we have a number of Ownership /
Maintenance statements, one of which is the one I proposed, but
another of which would something along the lines of:
If you put something on CPAN and
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 08:09:35AM -0800, Linda W wrote:
Don't have to touch their code,... but if we want CPAN to be able to
be relied upon.. it's can't have unaddressed bugs for months (let alone a
year or more)...
I promise to address bug reports quickly if you make them more important
On 11/21/2011 09:58 AM, Neil Bowers wrote:
Maybe instead of just this Covenant, we have a number of Ownership /
Maintenance statements, one of which is the one I proposed, but
another of which would something along the lines of:
This is my module, I don't want it handing over unless I've either
On Nov 18, 2011, at 14:42 , Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* yan...@babyl.dyndns.org yan...@babyl.dyndns.org [2011-11-18 16:00]:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 02:06:54PM +0100, Burak G?rsoy wrote:
Very good point. I'll extract the pledge wording itself to a separate
distribution (CPAN::Covenant, CPAN
Hi Neil,
thank you for your work! I think it's very important.
On 11/17/2011 09:13 AM, Neil Bowers wrote:
A week ago I posted a proposal for a voluntary pledge, which CPAN
module authors could sign up to. With Bill Ward's tweak to the wording,
the discussion on per-distribution stating, and
hi,
On 11/11/20 17:00 +0100, Steffen Mueller wrote:
In the discussion on module-authors, and talking to people at the London
Perl Workshop (LPW): about 60% thought it was a good idea, 20% a bad idea,
and
20% indifferent. Most of the 'bad' being it works that way already.
Sadly, it does
Hi Steffen,
I hereby give modu...@perl.org permission to grant co-maintainership
to [% distribution %], if all the following conditions are met:
Refer to the PAUSE administrators instead of modu...@perl.org? A mailing
list is a weird thing to carry authority. :)
Ah, that's the right
* Brandon Fosdick bfosd...@gmail.com [2011-11-21 06:30]:
Escheat is a common law doctrine which transfers the property of
a person who dies without heirs to the crown or state. It serves
to ensure that property is not left in limbo without recognised
ownership.
That seems morbid, considering
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:55:09 -0500
Von: Yanick Champoux yan...@babyl.dyndns.org
An: Neil Bowers n...@bowers.com
CC: module-authors@perl.org, modu...@perl.org
Betreff: Re: The CPAN Covenant
On 11-11-17 03:08 PM, yan...@babyl.dyndns.org wrote
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 02:06:54PM +0100, Burak G?rsoy wrote:
I think something like this must be standalone like Software::License.
Attaching it to Dist::Zilla limits the audience heavily.
Very good point. I'll extract the
pledge wording itself to a separate distribution (CPAN
the pledge wording itself to a separate
distribution (CPAN::Covenant, CPAN::AuthorPledge, CPAN::Pledge?).
Covenant seems much more appropriate a term than pledge since the author
isn’t making a promise about action or behaviour, but is rather granting
permission for such to be taken with his
A week ago I posted a proposal for a voluntary pledge, which CPAN
module authors could sign up to. With Bill Ward's tweak to the wording,
the discussion on per-distribution stating, and generalising the RT point:
I hereby give modu...@perl.org permission to grant co-maintainership
to [%
On 11-11-17 01:37 PM, Bill Ward wrote:
Sounds good to me ... I hereby accept this covenant for the modules I
maintain, present and future, until such time as I indicate otherwise in
email to modu...@perl.org mailto:modu...@perl.org
Now, did you update all your modules?
--
Just my 0.0002
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 08:13:45AM +, Neil Bowers wrote:
A week ago I posted a proposal for a voluntary pledge, which CPAN
module authors could sign up to. With Bill Ward's tweak to the wording,
the discussion on per-distribution stating, and generalising the RT point:
I hereby give
On 11-11-17 03:08 PM, yan...@babyl.dyndns.org wrote:
Dist::Zilla::Plugin::Covenant coming to CPAN real soon (or even
sooner if somebody beats me to it:-) ).
Tadah! https://github.com/yanick/Dist-Zilla-Plugin-Covenant
Caveat maximus emptor: this should only be considered a
28 matches
Mail list logo
