In order to trim the large number of RFCs that have not been updated in
many weeks, yet are still "in development", I've prepared a report
of which RFCs are most overdue.
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/overdue.html
Here is the current status, broken down by group:
Report generated: Tue Sep 19 07:06
A not uncommon question arises, "I want to write a Perl program and
distribute it to my customers/users/co-workers, but what if they don't
have Perl?" This may be someone wanting to ship out their code to
Windows and Mac machines, or maybe they're in some company gripped in
the clutches of Java a
All RFCs must fall into one of three status categories:
Developing (RFC is incomplete; commments requested)
Frozen (Comments received; nothing more to say)
Retracted (Comments received; author is removing idea from
consideration.)
(NB: 'Retracted'
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:18:41AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Piers Cawley writes:
> > > The idea here is to allow people to get ideas on the lists in a rough
> > > form where they can get some initial comments (which may blow the
> > > 'real' RF
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:47:11AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > That *shouldn't* be hard. If you're getting hung up on details like
> > =over 4, =item, L<> and C<>, then leave them out.
>
> No, I'm getting hung up on the fact that it'll take a bunch of time to
> flesh out the RFCs beyond a s
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:47:11AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > > That *shouldn't* be hard. If you're getting hung up on details like
> > > =over 4, =item, L<> and C<>, then leave them out.
> >
> > No, I'm getting hung up on the fact that it'll take
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> All these techniques have their strengths and weaknesses which I'm
> sure we're all aware of (and this is the wrong place to debate them).
> What I'm concerned is that Perl 6 has a clean, reliable, free and
> straightforward way(s) to use Perl without perl. How clean,
I have just learned of the RFC "freeze or die" deadline of 25 September 2000
(ok, I am behind on my email. :)
I am curious if this applies to any Working Groups besides perl6-language.
As chair of the Licensing Working Group, I am a bit concerned that we
haven't developed enough possible licensin
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:17PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> I am curious if this applies to any Working Groups besides perl6-language.
I don't see why not. We're nearing the 300 RFC mark, and most of
the RFCs have yet to make it to v2. I don't think encouaging
hit-and-run RFC submission
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
>On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:26:17PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > I am curious if this applies to any Working Groups besides
>perl6-language.
>
>I don't see why not. We're nearing the 300 RFC mark, and most of
>the RFCs have yet to make it to v2. I don't think encouagin
10 matches
Mail list logo
