On Wednesday, November 06, 2002, at 11:54 AM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 11:18 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Since you're interested in the management of the Perl 6 project, I'll
let you in on some of it. Let's start with a step back into a bit of
history:
OK,
1) We find a team of volunteers who are willing to own the
task of converting each Apocalypse into a complete design. If
nobody wants to write the Perl 6 user manual, then we might as well
give up and go home now. So far we only need to find four, though,
so it Might Just Work.
I would
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 03:44 AM, Angel Faus wrote:
1) We find a team of volunteers who are willing to own the
task of converting each Apocalypse into a complete design. If
nobody wants to write the Perl 6 user manual, then we might as well
I would prefer to work from perl5
On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 at 10:38 -0800, Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I dunno anymore, maybe we need to rethink what place there is for
public domain docs at all. Perhaps we just have a man page that says
buy the damn books, you cheapskate and be done with it.
I trust you were joking, right?
[responding to several of the most recent posts]
Let's table discussion of the details for a few days until we get the
perl6-documentation list set up. Then we can dig into planning out the
scope and goals of the project, and what roles various people might
take.
Allison
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 11:18 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
Since you're interested in the management of the Perl 6 project, I'll
let you in on some of it. Let's start with a step back into a bit of
history:
OK, let me pause for a second... pause, pause, pause... OK, I'm better
now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
Big, Big HOLE in the middle. _Who_ is fleshing out the mindless,
trivial details that Larry posts to this list, and _who_ is
creating/updating the documentation to reflect those changes? Anyone?
Allison is, but she was too modest to say so. (And I
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 04:26:58PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So what say you? Can we migrate perl6-language into a list that
finalizes aspects of the design, documents them, and revises them as
needed, rather than our usual circular discussions of things already
long-since past?
What
On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 23:18:01 -0800, Allison Randal wrote:
If you really want to be involved where the rubber meets the road -- where the
abstract design gets tested and every last detail must be fleshed out -- you
might contribute to Parrot. It has a good many of the features of the first 5
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:58:52PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
Big, Big HOLE in the middle. _Who_ is fleshing out the mindless,
trivial details that Larry posts to this list, and _who_ is
creating/updating the documentation to reflect those
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 10:58 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
It's all at http://cvs.perl.org/cvsweb/perl6/doc/design/
No, that's the Apocalypses and Exegesiii, though very nicely cleaned
up. I'm talking about detailed documentation for the things the A's
and E's don't cover.
MikeL
We started off with an intense RFC process. This produced many good
ideas, not-so-good ideas, and ideas with potential but desperately
needing polish. If you'd like a recap, you might try MJD's article
on the subject (http://www.perl.com/lpt/a/2000/11/perl6rfc.html).
One of the major things
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
No, that's the Apocalypses and Exegesiii, though very nicely cleaned
up. I'm talking about detailed documentation for the things the A's
and E's don't cover.
Ah, well, they don't cover that. I thought that was what you were doing,
right? :)
--
So
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 12:10 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
No, that's the Apocalypses and Exegesiii, though very nicely cleaned
up. I'm talking about detailed documentation for the things the A's
and E's don't cover.
Ah, well, they don't
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:50:10PM -0600, Allison Randal wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:58:52PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
Big, Big HOLE in the middle. _Who_ is fleshing out the mindless,
trivial details that Larry posts to this list, and
I'm going to repeat what chromatic said (even though I've deleted his message)
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:57:58PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
- Finish the details that may be not complete in the Apocalypses
(there are plenty of them)
write specifications of all the detailed bits as regression
Angel Faus wrote:
So, while we all wait for Larry to wait the design, is there any
reason not to start working in the documentation?
Any chance of getting a wiki setup at:
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/cathecism/
Say using a wiki which uses pod for markup like:
At 2:26 PM -0600 11/6/02, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Angel Faus wrote:
So, while we all wait for Larry to wait the design, is there any
reason not to start working in the documentation?
Any chance of getting a wiki setup at:
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/cathecism/
Wikis have serious scaling
At 9:57 PM +0100 11/6/02, Angel Faus wrote:
It's like this: Larry writes the Apocalypses, Damian the Exegesis, and
the community writes the Cathecism (a codified, detallied and
anonymous explanation of the most boring details of the faith,
written in a form that plain people can understand).
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:54:23AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
-- The latest news on the Perl6 section of dev.perl.org was updated
July 7th, introducing Piers, and other than linking to Piers' summaries
contains no information pertinent to Perl6 -- only Parrot.
Sounds like a place you
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 12:26 PM, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Angel Faus wrote:
So, while we all wait for Larry to wait the design, is there any
reason not to start working in the documentation?
Yes! Someone gets it! The Apocalypses and Exegesis are not formal
documentation, they're
At 2:44 PM -0600 11/6/02, Allison Randal wrote:
The obstruction you're imagining doesn't exist. The Parroteers ask for
guidance from Dan. When Dan feels the details aren't clear enough yet he
brings the issue to the rest of the design team. When none of us can
give him an immediate answer
My apologies for one more post, but I find the assertions various
people have posted on this topic to be absolutely astounding.
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 12:44 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
I don't *WANT* to write damn documentation. I wrote a first-chapter
summary of some basic
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Not good. 5 patches means that 4 people wasted effort trying to help.
I don't have a solution to this problem (sorry). But I think it's an
important problem to solve.
Wasted effort is a problem. I don't know that a perfect solution exists.
Parrot's solution of making
This is getting silly.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
Seriously, don't patronize me: it won't get you anywhere productive,
and it just ticks me off. I am not _unaware_ of the current Perl6
dynamics and management decisions; on the contrary, I am observing
that the current
At 11:15 PM + 11/6/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
I think you're equating a pool of available talent and labor with
a pool of willing talent and labour. Everyone is willing to offer
suggestions, but few people - you being one of the few - are willing
to put the time into thrashing these suggestions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
1) There *must* be someone who will drive the discussion, or it will
wander off into some bizarre corner and die
That's the job of the Apo pumpkin.
2) Under no circumstances can Larry be allowed to subscribe, or even
read, the lists. :)
I thought
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 03:34 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:15 PM + 11/6/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
Here is my suggested solution to the problem.
And, though, snipped, a fine solution it is, with two caveats:
1) There *must* be someone who will drive the discussion, or it will
At 11:39 PM + 11/6/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
2) Under no circumstances can Larry be allowed to subscribe, or even
read, the lists. :)
I thought that was so obvious it wasn't worth mentioning. :)
It's the blatantly obvious stuff that gets missed
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Here is my suggested solution to the problem.
And, though, snipped, a fine solution it is, with two caveats:
There's potential here. If we arrange it so Larry can stay focused and
the total productivity of the project increases, we'll have a good
30 matches
Mail list logo
