On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 12:48:54AM -0400, Bryan C . Warnock wrote:
Okay, fun's over. Back to work.
There was a Perl Documentation BOF that was scheduled for 6:30 Friday;
however, it seems none of the folks who showed up actually called it, and
none of the folks who called it actually
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 05:20:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's the trick, Solaris is Sun's Blessed Platform. As a
Linux/PowerPC user, I know how Ziggy feels. I'm almost totally
ignored by Sun and I'd imagine I'd have just as much trouble getting
it working as he did.
This is
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 01:18:07PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
Adam Turoff [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*
*Nevertheless, a degenerate case for installing Perl never requires
*transfers or temporary disk space measured in quarter gigabytes.
Sure it can.
Allow me to clarify
What follows is a long, detailed summary of an attempt to install JDK 1.2.2
on FreeBSD today. FreeBSD/JDK 1.2.2 is an unsupported configuration for Sun,
although patches exist to get the JDK to work under FreeBSD.
Skip to the last two paragraphs if you want to see how this installation
compares
As some of you may have noticed from the YAPC schedule[1], I'll be hosting
the Perl Apprenticeship Hour next week.
I'm STILL looking for brief descriptions of projects that are
looking for some help, including:
* documentation* tools
* tutorials* bugfixes
* modules *
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 08:08:40PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 12:55:55PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Atoms- Unicode. If everything is Unicode, you're going to have to grok
Unicode (at least tangentally) to be able to use perl.
Bah. Rubbish, no more than you
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:41:15PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Stephen P. Potter writes:
It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and
especially with 6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no
longer a fun litle language that can be easily used to hack out
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:20:33PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.
Ed,
The RFC process that we started this summer is formally and
intentionally closed. Your post,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
As I stated in the original post, there is no reason *not* to keep the
process open.
In an attempt to keep my previous message concise, I seem to have
neglected a few key points:
1) The RFC was a free-for-all brainstorming
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 07:44:51PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
Also, if we go down the 'have a competition to see who can write the best
PDD on subject X' path, can we replace the 'TBD' in unnumbered PDDs
with a short string chosen by the author? This allows us to (hopefully)
unqiuely
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:42:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
Sounds good to me.
Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria? PDD 0 describes
an acceptable baseline on
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:42:58PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:35:56AM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
All PDDs (like RFCs) need to start with 'Status: Developing' by default.
Since statuses like 'Standard', 'Rejected', etc. have Real Meaning (tm),
there should
On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 04:20:58PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I want perl 6's internal API to have the same sort of artistic integrity
that the language has. That's not, unfortunately, possible with everyone
having equal say. I'd like it to be otherwise, but that's just not possible
with
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:58:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(Though I don't think we really need more than a few weeks to get a good
set of working RFCs for this, though of course they'll get amended and
expanded as work proceeds)
I'd like to see a revised set of RFC guidelines
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 10:37:27PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
- The core team appeared to be doing too much, meddling in affairs
which didn't concern them.
http://www.freebsd.org/FAQ/misc.html#AEN4823
Q: Why should I care what color the bikeshed is?
A: The really, really short answer
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 10:33:57PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
One question: how does an individual become a committer in the first
place? This question becomes of upmost significance to folks like
David Grove :)
Submitting patches that are accepted into the tree are a huge part of it.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 12:05:14AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 04:59:50PM -0400, Jorg Ziefle wrote:
Detailed information should follow soon. Should I write an RFC to
discuss about, though I would come a bit late? :(
RFC 313 not good enough for you? :)
I think
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 05:00:10PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 04:35:42PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
http://www.bsdtoday.com/2000/October/News306.html
Oops, sorry about that, didn't read Ziggy's message first...
No worries. These BSD guys are onto
The FreeBSD Core team has just finished electing their next core team.
Only "significant" contributors to the project were allowed to vote, and
those elected hold office for a fixed term (two years). The Core Team
of nine members determine the project's goals and directions.
Many open source
On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 09:41:30AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Then again, remember the hassles we had with the perl6-* lists?
Nobody knew how to deal with topics that overlapped lists. You had
to know all the groups to decide which it was appropriate for. Are
these big enough hassles
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 11:00:55PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:42:57PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Too many RFCs live in a vacuum by not not explaining in enough detail
what is the problem they are trying to solve, but instead go ahead and
pull
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 07:56:49PM -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 12:56:44AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
Why isn't there a documentation w/g? Yes, this is a hint.
My RFC 240 garnered exactly 0 responses, so there doesn't seem to be
much of an interest. I was trying to
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:11:27PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Mark-Jason Dominus writes:
I think it would be a step in the right direction if the WG chairs
actually required RFC authors to maintain their RFCs.
In preparation for the end-run of RFCing, how about we compile a list
of
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 09:58:14PM +0100, Alan Burlison wrote:
I don't believe in magic. I'm an engineer by profession, not an
astrologer. However, I will predict endless arguments when some of the
less than coherent proposals are rejected.
The RFC process was intended to bring out both
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 05:31:37PM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
2000-09-07-17:11:50 Dan Sugalski:
That's certainly possible, but since the reason we're gathered here
together working on trying to launch perl6 is a collective belief
that perl5 has become unmaintainable for further development,
http://dev.perl.org/summary/
Each established list/working group has a spot on this page.
Weekly/Bi-weekly summaries will be posted as they arrive.
Currently, only the two summaries from last week (Aug 31) are
online. Earlier summaries will be posted as I find them in the archives
26 matches
Mail list logo
