On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:30:47AM -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:10:02AM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:15:49PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: > > > I nominate the > > > > > > Review::* > > > > > > Namespace for author-submitted module indexes and in-depth reviews, in > > > POD format. I think this has a number of advantages. Let's use the > > > infrastructure we already have, no? > > > > Interesting, but what comes after Review:: if it's Review::Text::Balanced > > then how do we get multiple reviews Text::Balanced > > Maybe the convention could be: > > Review::Text::Balanced::CPANUSERNAME > > I'll let someone else suggest what should happen if the same person > decides to review the same module multiple times. (Perhaps there would be > an early negative review, and then a later positive review after the > module improved with feedback.)
I thought someone might say that. The more I think about it, the more I think that it's not a great idea using the real CPAN to do things other than distribute code. Reuse the infrastructure by all means but the idea of mixing bundles, code, reviews and whatever else comes up in the same hierarchy with just naming conventions to tell them apart does not appeal to me. If we weren't dependent on collapsing all the relevant information down into a :: delimited list it would be much nicer (fantasy land, I know), F
